Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock, notice having been given by MADAM SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Earlier meeting of House in certain circumstances).

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Omagh

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the bomb in Omagh.
At 3.10 pm on 15 August, a car bomb consisting of 200 to 300 lb of home-made explosive blew up in Market street in the centre of Omagh as a community festival was in progress. The explosion brought devastation and tragedy to the heart of the town. Twenty-eight people were killed—the highest death toll in any single incident in Northern Ireland. Seventeen were Roman Catholic, 11 were Protestant, 11 were under the age of 18. The dead included three from the Republic, and two from Spain. Over 200 people were injured, many very seriously. More than 50 continue to receive medical treatment in hospitals around the country.
The whole House will want to join me in expressing our disgust, outrage and total condemnation of those who were responsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
There was a telephone warning at 2.30 pm to Ulster Television. It spoke of a bomb close to the courthouse in Main street. The Royal Ulster Constabulary responded accordingly and moved people away from the courthouse down Market street. The bomb went off 400 yd from the courthouse in Market street, in the very area to which people had been directed. The bomb was in a car in the street outside busy shops at a busy time of a busy day. The resulting carnage was inevitable. We reject with contempt the excuses of those who have tried to explain it away.
The atrocity was later admitted by the so-called Real IRA, a renegade republican group. All the political parties in Northern Ireland condemned the attack unequivocally. Hon. Members from Northern Ireland and those of us who have been to Omagh, including myself, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, have seen the terrible pain and grief that were inflicted, and the trauma that has resulted for many. No one can fail to have been moved by the sight of the procession of coffins that we saw on our television screens as those who were killed in the explosion were buried. Again, the whole House extends its deepest sympathies to the victims of this wicked attack, and to all their families and their friends.
We should also take this opportunity to appreciate once again the magnificent work that was carried out by the emergency and health services. In dreadfully difficult and distressing circumstances, they did their utmost to rescue the victims of this outrage, to tend to the injured and to

comfort the shocked. They went through experiences that no one should have to face. Their courage and dedication were remarkable. They are remarkable people, and we in the House salute them.
When I visited the Royal Victoria hospital the following day, I saw for myself not only the professional skill of the medical staff but the hugely important comforting and counselling role that they played. They have my and our whole-hearted admiration and respect.
I also believe that the RUC deserve the highest praise. On many occasions in the past, their skill and courage have prevented similar scenes of carnage, but, perhaps as a result, the warning times have been shortening. On this occasion, they were helpless in the face of the misleading warning that was given by those cowards who carried out this attack, but the RUC's subsequent actions attracted deserved gratitude from all sides of the community.
We have known tragedy in Northern Ireland many times before; but this was an indiscriminate attack on a whole community, bringing nothing but further grief to the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland. It was a deliberate attempt, by a small group of extremists with no moral or political support anywhere, to wreck the Good Friday agreement and the foundation for a lasting and peaceful Northern Ireland which the agreement offers. It was a cynical attempt to provoke a violent reaction from others.
Those aims, however, have not succeeded, and they will not be allowed to succeed. That has been the response not only of the two Governments and the political parties but also, overwhelmingly, of the people of Omagh and elsewhere in Northern Ireland and the Republic. It was on the lips of virtually all those to whom I spoke, even those who had suffered most, when I visited Omagh just over a week ago.
The aim of those bombers was, as I say, not just to kill innocent people but to strike at the very heart of the peace process. The best response that we can give, therefore, is not to abandon the Good Friday agreement but, on the contrary, to carry it forward vigorously, to deny these people the very objective they seek, and to continue to work for a better future for Northern Ireland that puts the past behind us.
The agreement reached on Good Friday was emphatically endorsed in referendums north and south. The election in June underlined the wish of the majority of people in Northern Ireland to reach for a new and peaceful future. Those who continue with terror have no support, no votes, no mandate from any part of any community in the whole of the island of Ireland.
Both we and the Irish Government are fully committed to implementing the will of the people of Ireland, north and south. Further political progress is by far the best answer to violence, and, as I have said, it is what the people of Northern Ireland demand and deserve.
I therefore welcome the efforts to achieve this of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—the First Minister and First Deputy Minister designate of the new Northern Ireland Assembly—and of other politicians in Northern Ireland. I welcome yesterday's statement by Sinn Fein, making clearer than ever its rejection of violence and commitment to peaceful means, and the initiative of the First Minister and the First Deputy Minister designate in calling a meeting of the leaders of all the political parties next week.
I welcome, too, the latest announcement today of the appointment of Martin McGuinness to work with the Independent Commission on Decommissioning to facilitate the process of decommissioning. This is a practical, important step forward in the implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday agreement. Under that agreement, the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons within two years is a vital part of a lasting settlement.
This is a difficult process, and there will be many more difficulties along the way; but I have no doubt that things are on the move, and moving in the right direction. In the wake of Omagh, people of both communities are determined as never before to overcome past divisions and to build new confidence and trust, and we shall do all we can to help this process.
But we must also take strong and decisive steps to deal with this unrepresentative minority who want to use violence to undermine this peaceful future. Amid what I believe to be unprecedented co-operation between Governments and police forces, we continue to provide maximum support to the RUC and the Garda as they hunt for those responsible for the Omagh bomb and other outrages. I can assure the House that the investigation to bring to justice those responsible is being pursued with the utmost intensity and with complete unity of purpose between the British and the Irish authorities.
To complement and reinforce those security operations, both we and the Government of the Republic propose to strengthen our anti-terrorist laws to help bring to justice those who are still dedicated to violence. I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for agreeing to this recall of Parliament to enable early action to be taken. The Irish Parliament is also meeting today to discuss a wide range of new proposals designed to strengthen its own terrorist legislation and, in many respects, bring it into line with our own.
The House will shortly be debating our own proposals. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will explain the full details, but I believe that they are a proportionate, targeted response to deal with small, evil groups of violent men who seek to wreck the hopes for peace for which the great majority yearn and have voted. Our basic aim is to make it easier to achieve convictions for membership of the organisations concerned, in particular by changing the rules of evidence in a way that is tough but is fully thought through, and fully in line with the rule of law and our commitments under the European convention on human rights.
The House is also well aware that terrorism is an increasing threat world-wide. The horrific bomb attacks on the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in early August brought that home yet again, as did the more recent bomb in a restaurant in South Africa. As I know from my own discussions with other leaders, not least in Europe, the international community is and should be determined to respond uncompromisingly. Britain must play an active part in the international battle against terrorism, and avoid becoming any kind of haven for international terrorists and their supporters. We are therefore taking the opportunity of Parliament's recall to put into law long-held plans to make it a criminal offence of conspiracy to commit offences outside the UK.
We will not forget the horror of Omagh, but I say this to those who perpetrated that outrage: "You sought to wreck the agreement, and you failed. You sought to divide the community, and you failed. You sought to win new support, and you failed. You failed because violence and terror represent the past in Northern Ireland, and democracy and peace represent the future in Northern Ireland." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
There are few more important challenges to democracy, and therefore to this House, than terrorism in all its forms. We must fight it vigorously wherever it appears, while holding fast to our democratic principles and the rule of law. We must also redouble our efforts to carry through the political settlement in Northern Ireland, which alone can bring lasting peace. That is the approach that I commend to the House.

Mr. William Hague: When the Prime Minister speaks of the outrage and horror of the Omagh bomb, he speaks for both sides of the House. Each one of us has been appalled by the scenes of destruction in Market street and the tragedy wrought by the violence. Each one of us has been moved by the courage and professionalism of the emergency services and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as the Prime Minister described. Each one of us has been given hope by the determination shown by the people of Omagh not to let the men of violence win.
Like the Prime Minister, we utterly reject the excuses of those who carried out that atrocity. Like him, we extend our deepest sympathy to the devastated families involved. Like him, we wish to see no effort spared to bring to justice the evil murderers responsible for that.
The answer to one question above all must be clear in our minds. Why did those murderers commit their terrible crime? Why did they do it? The answer is cold and simple: they are prepared to do anything to prevent the people of Northern Ireland from living in peace, in the hope that they can achieve through violence what they know they cannot achieve through democratic persuasion.
Does the Prime Minister agree that anyone who thinks that has misjudged the people of Omagh, the House and the people of the entire United Kingdom? Is he aware that the Government will have the support of the Opposition if they do everything that they can to ensure that the terrorists do not succeed? He will also continue to have our support in implementing the Good Friday agreement and in carrying through the efforts of this Government and the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) to bring lasting peace.
Does the Prime Minister agree that, although we should welcome the words of the Sinn Fein president yesterday, tough words must now be matched by clear deeds, as the Good Friday agreement effectively links progress on decommissioning with the early release of convicted terrorists and membership of the Northern Ireland Executive? We welcome the first move by Sinn Fein to co-operate with the decommissioning commission by appointing a representative to work with it. I welcome what the Prime Minister said in his statement about the importance of the decommissioning of all paramilitary explosives and guns over the next two years, as agreed under the Good Friday agreement, supported by Sinn Fein and the loyalist paramilitaries.
If Sinn Fein's words are to ring true, we must now look for the actual dismantling of the apparatus of terror that paramilitaries on both sides have held over the people of


Northern Ireland for so long. Can the Prime Minister assure us that terrorist prisoners will not be released early until the process of giving up guns and bombs has actually begun?
The Opposition will support the Government's legislation today, but can I put to the Prime Minister two specific concerns? The first is that, although today's proceedings and those in the Irish Republic will bring the law north and south of the border more closely in line, there will be one glaring difference. As such store is now being set by having the same laws in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it was a mistake last autumn, as we argued then, to remove from our statute book the reserve power of internment, a power that is retained in the Irish Republic?
The second concern is that, although we support the legislation because everything possible needs to be done to combat terrorism, we inevitably worry about the effectiveness and the operation of any legislation that is so hastily conceived and executed. Will the Prime Minister agree to a full review of the effectiveness of this legislation, to be published before the Government come back to the House to seek its renewal in 12 months' time?
I welcome the release announced today of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. The Prime Minister will know that my colleagues and I have raised their case many times, and we are delighted that their cases have been reviewed and that they are now free.

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response, particularly for the words that he said about the emergency services and the RUC. It is also right that we should not forget the role of the Army in this. The Army and RAF helicopters also played a vital part in moving people from the scene of the incident, and the death toll would have been considerably higher had they not done so. Anyone who has travelled in and visited regularly Northern Ireland knows the debt of gratitude that we owe our armed forces for the work they do there.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those who think that violence is the way forward have misjudged the mood of people. I was struck in Omagh by the fact that people from all parts of the community and those who supported all different political parties within Northern Ireland were unanimous in their view that the Good Friday agreement was the way forward. I pay tribute to the work that was done before this Government came to office by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) to try to bring about a process of peace.
I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the Good Friday agreement itself, and the words that are in it. All the parts of the agreement have to be read as a whole, whether on prisoner release, decommissioning or any of the rest of it. It is worth pointing out that, contrary to what some people sometimes say, decommissioning is part of the agreement. It contains an obligation for all weapons to be decommissioned within a two-year period. I hope that the process begins as soon as possible. We welcome what has happened today as a practical step on the way to that. 
The right hon. Gentleman raised two specific concerns about the legislation. We had to make a judgment about internment. We have made it clear that we do not rule anything out for ever, but my judgment is that the history of internment as it operates here and in the Irish Republic is different.
All the way through, we are trying to take carefully targeted measures that allow us to deal with these terrorist groups, but do not provoke such a backlash in other parts of the community that they undermine the fight that we are trying to secure. I agree that that is a matter of judgment, but that is our judgment; although, as I say, we rule nothing out for the future, should things be necessary. Although the Irish Government have the power of internment on their statute book, they do not intend to implement it at this stage.
As for the points about measures being hastily conceived, I believe that again, as a result of having targeted the measure carefully, we have steered the right course between a knee-jerk reaction that introduces measures that are not well thought through and measures that will give us practical help and assistance in trying to deal with those people who are members of the relevant proscribed organisations.
But, of course, this has to be seen against the background of the review of the terrorist legislation which is going on at present and will be published in due course by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I think that the publication date will be within the next six months. I cannot promise to have it done before the House reconvenes, but it will allow us to examine the ambit of terrorist legislation, how it works and how this particular legislation is operating. It will also give us the chance to consider some of the proposals being made by the RUC and the Garda for further tightening measures.
The process is already under way that allows us to analyse what we need to do for the future, but I believe that people expect us to do two things in the wake of Omagh. One is to take what security measures we responsibly can to try to deal with the small remaining groups engaged in terror. The second is to continue with the political process. I believe that the events of the past two weeks have shown that the will exists right across the community in Northern Ireland, and certainly in the House, to do both those things.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I echo the comments already made, without necessarily having to repeat them, about the atrocity of Omagh, and especially the welcome given to Sinn Fein's helpful statement yesterday. Perhaps out of the horrors of Omagh we are at last going to see a real and historic opportunity for the people of Ireland to come together to build a peace for the future. In so far as this legislation is aimed at that purpose, we support it.
We are, however, glad that the Government appear to have amended the original draft legislation that we saw, because there were and remain some concerns. We are especially glad that the Government have agreed that there needs to be more than the statement of a single police officer to deal with the issue of proscribed organisations. We are also glad that there will be an opportunity annually to review and renew the legislation.
Many of the concerns will have been answered, but is the Prime Minister aware that one, it seems, has not? It is the Government's decision to add into the legislation matters that are nothing to do with Northern Ireland. I deeply regret that. I regret that, by adding complicating extra measures, which are, in my view, unnecessary, the Government will not have given the House a full and ample opportunity to debate the matter properly.
Nevertheless, the Government can count on our support, because we believe that these are exceptional times, which require exceptional actions—for three


reasons. First, having maintained the cross-party unity on Northern Ireland matters that has subsisted in the House for 25 years, it would be wrong to allow it to be destroyed by the blood and atrocities of Omagh. The second reason is that precisely parallel legislation is now going through the Irish Parliament. We have long been in favour of that, and it would be a tragedy if the first attempt ended in failure when it ought to be a model for the future. I hope that the Prime Minister will confirm that that is what he would like.
Finally, the atrocity committed on that terrible day in Omagh was not against the actions of a single Government whom one group of people may or may not support, but was designed to undermine and destroy the sovereign will of the Irish people, who, in a referendum, overwhelmingly expressed the desire for peace. We cannot allow that to succeed.

The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's points about the legislation, it was always our intention that the statement of a police officer could not of itself alone secure a conviction. I think that an annual review is simply sensible in legislation of this sort.
There are two reasons for the international measures. First, they have long been on the stocks, as it were. Under the last Government and under this Government, we have been waiting for the right opportunity. People expect us to be taking action not merely in respect of acts of terrorism within the United Kingdom but in respect of people here conspiring to commit such acts abroad. I think that, after the events of the past few weeks, that feeling is stronger rather than weaker.
In respect of the legislation in the Irish Republic, of the many differences between the situation now and that which has existed over a considerable period in Northern Ireland, one stands out above all others—the co-operation between ourselves and the Government in the Republic. We are working together. One of the reasons that we thought it right to seek the recall of Parliament is not just that it would, I think, be unwise for us to proceed without legislation, but that it is right to proceed step by step with the Irish Government, showing that there is a determination, in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland, to hunt down those responsible and to bring them to justice, recognising that this is a different situation and that those people have no support and no votes anywhere.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Does the Prime Minister recognise that every sensible person will share his desire to see the perpetrators of the terrible atrocity at Omagh and their supporters behind bars, but that there is no substitute for patient detective work, resulting in credible evidence and the conviction of the right people? If we get this wrong, we shall end up creating a political base for a tiny, isolated sect, which has no political base at the moment. That is what has happened in the past, and we must avoid it in the future.
If we are to avoid that happening again, we must have credible evidence, capable of belief in court. Therefore, will the Prime Minister consider accepting two of the amendments that I have tabled, one of which would require the RUC to take audio recordings of interviews with suspects—which, incredibly, it has resisted for

years? The second would require the presence of a solicitor, as is required in most of the rest of the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend make the Bill conditional on that happening? He will find that all the mainly bogus objections raised to such matters will melt away like snow on a volcano if those provisions are a condition of being allowed to arrest people in the way that the Bill proposes.

The Prime Minister: First of all, my hon. Friend's concerns are perfectly reasonable—I accept that. I accept, too, that we have to beware of repeating any mistakes made in the past. As I said, we do not want to provoke a backlash which will give those people a political base. However, we must also recognise that we are dealing with a different situation—with a very small group of people who have no base and no support, but who have the capacity to engage in the most appalling acts of tenor, as we have seen. Measures have to be focused, targeted and responsibly done.
I take it that my hon. Friend accepts the need for some form of legislation. On his first point, on audio recording, that is now the law, and it is being introduced as quickly as possible. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will say some more about that.
On the presence of a solicitor, it is precisely to deal with the European convention on human rights that we made it a condition that people have to see a solicitor. My right hon. Friend will also draw attention to the other safeguards that exist in respect of the presence of a solicitor. We do not believe that it is right to amend the legislation in that way for reasons that my right hon. Friend will give, but we are acutely conscious of the need to steer a path between carefully targeted action and action that could result in the miscarriage of justice. Obviously, we do not want the latter, and that is why we have been so careful to frame the legislation in that way.

Mr. William Thompson: First, I welcome the Prime Minister's statement. All hon. Members who have spoken reflected the view of the whole House this afternoon when they offered their sympathy and condolence to the people of Omagh, especially all those who have lost loved ones and those who are still recovering from serious injuries—many are still in a serious condition.
Omagh is in my constituency—indeed, it is my home town. I was born close by, and have spent all my life there. I went to school in Omagh and was employed by the local council for nine years, after which I had a business which has served the people of Omagh for the past 30 years. It is a town where people have always got on well together, and, despite several bomb attacks and a number of murders of security personnel and others during the years of our troubles, in the main those good relationships have remained.
Saturday 15 August was a busy day in the town. The weather was good, and many mothers and children were together, no doubt buying school uniforms and getting ready to go back to school. Indeed, as the Prime Minister said, a festival was taking place too, and a number of floats were expected to parade through the town at 3.30 pm.
Just after 2.30 pm, a male caller made a call to the Ulster Television newsroom saying that a bomb had been placed outside the courthouse at the top of Main street,


and it was due to go off in about half an hour. Three minutes later, a second call was made stating that the bomb would go off in 15 minutes. A further call was made to the Samaritans.
The police immediately went into action and expeditiously cleared the area round the courthouse, routeing many people to the bottom of the town into Market street, where they believed they would be safe. Later, a policeman standing in the centre of the town was expecting the bomb to go off to his right, at the courthouse—but it went off to his left, and he realised that the blast had taken place not at the courthouse but in Market street where the people had assembled.
That policeman quickly made his way down to Market street, but he was not prepared for what he met; it was utter carnage. He and his police colleagues were met with horrific sights, screams for help and mangled bodies, terrible injuries and blood everywhere. A water main had burst, and the water was washing parts of bodies down the side of the street. No doubt those sights will remain with them and with fellow officers who were quickly on the scene to help; those memories come back in their sleep at night as they relive the events they saw.
Like the Prime Minister, I wish to put on the record the excellent work done by the emergency services—the police, the Army, the RAF, the fire brigade and the ambulance men, and especially the members of the public who rushed to the scene and did everything asked of them.
The scenes at the local hospital were equally harrowing, as the numbers of the injured increased and relatives thronged the corridors searching for their loved ones whom they knew had been in the town and were unaccounted for. Again, I place on the record the valiant work done by the surgeons, the other doctors and nurses, the paramedics, and everyone else at the hospital. They did excellent work in stabilising many of the injured, in performing emergency life-saving surgery, and in making people ready for transfer to other acute hospitals.
There were also the ministers of religion and the people from the social services and the district council, who were called upon at short notice to deal with traumatised people, and who quickly made counselling services available. An incident centre was soon set up at the local leisure centre, and the work of collating information and identifying the dead and injured went on right through the night and the next day.
No one who was there will forget the scenes at the centre, as lists of the identified victims from the various hospitals were put on notice boards. Above all, there was the anguish of those whose relatives were unaccounted for, and who waited with decaying hope for news of their loved ones.
I pay tribute to the various hospitals that took the injured: Altnagelvin hospital, Erne hospital, South Tyrone hospital, the Royal Victoria hospital, Musgrave Park hospital, the City hospital and the Ulster hospital all readily received victims, and did magnificent work in treating them.
In all, as the Prime Minister said, 28 people lost their lives. Bombs are indiscriminate: they kill Protestants, Roman Catholics and Mormons; they kill all types of people; they kill children, mothers, grandmothers, sons and daughters. There are many people in Omagh today who mourn the loss of their loved ones.
I should like to. thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for coming and visiting us in Omagh. I should also like to thank the Prince of Wales for coming. He has known something of sorrow and distress, and when he came to Omagh, he readily identified with us there, and we felt that he empathised with us in our tragedy.
I pay tribute to the press and the other media. Sometimes they are criticised, but, except for one unfortunate programme, they behaved with extreme decency, were very understanding and did a good job.
Every decent person in Northern Ireland wants that bomb to be the last. We never want to see a bomb outrage like that again. The Real IRA has claimed responsibility for the bomb outrage. The security forces are convinced that the bomb was a deliberate attempt to kill men, women and children, and I agree with their assessment. It is hard to believe that people with such evil intentions are in our midst, but it is true. They have killed before, and they are quite prepared to do it again. They must be stopped.
I therefore welcome, as far as they go, the changes that will be made in the law in order to help defeat terrorism. Of course they are too late and too little, and no doubt, when we debate the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill, there will be an opportunity to say more about that.
I thank all hon. Members for their sympathy and their condolences this afternoon, which I am sure will be very much appreciated by my people in Omagh.

The Prime Minister: I am sure that everyone will respect and agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman

Mr. David Winnick: In view of the criticism, which a number of people have made, that the Government are going too far, what would have been the position if, following the terrible tragedy at Omagh, and against the background of what the Irish Government are proposing at this very moment in the Irish Parliament, the British Government had taken no further action against terrorism? If that had been the position, how would that have gone down among those in Omagh who lost their loved ones, and others who wait at the bedside while their dearest and loved ones receive the most urgent medical treatment, and, for all we know, may be seriously injured for the rest of their lives?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right; I do not think that it would have been understood if we had not responded. We must respond carefully and responsibly, but respond we must; first, to show that, both in the Irish Republic and in Northern Ireland, we will have the toughest possible responsible measures against terrorism. Secondly, because this is a group with absolutely no interest in the political process, it is important to have measures that enable us to deal with its members on the basis of stopping them committing these appalling acts of terrorism.

Mr Tom King (Bidgwater): If it is our dearest wish that this is the last such outrage that ever occurs in Northern Ireland or in the island of Ireland, and as, if terrorism is to be eradicated, it will be necessary for co-operation of the closest kind between the Irish and


British Governments and people to continue, will the Prime Minister accept my support for the fact that Parliament meets today, on the day that the Dail is meeting, to discuss legislation that can combine against the common enemy? Will he recognise that, although, over the years, there have been periods of good co-operation, it has often been difficult to sustain it throughout that period? As the two Governments are joint trustees of the Good Friday agreement, I very much hope that it will be the wish—I am sure it is—of the House that that close co-operation in dealing with any remaining terrorists will be fully sustained.

The Prime Minister: I agree with that entirely. As the right hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone else, the fact that the British and Irish Governments are working so closely together, and the fact that public opinion in the whole of the island of Ireland, in the Irish Republic and in Northern Ireland, in the United Kingdom—all that opinion—is behind the agreement, is vastly different from anything that has been known before. Those elements provide the context within which these measures can be carefully targeted—made to work—but they act alongside a political process that gives us a chance of a lasting, peaceful settlement.

Mr. John Hume: May I express my deep appreciation to the Prime Minister for what he has said today, and also to the leaders of the two main Opposition parties? I have no doubt that, as the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) made clear, what they have said will also be deeply appreciated by the people of Omagh.
In the past 30 years, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered terribly. One in 500 has lost a life, and one in 50 has been maimed or injured—yet far the worst atrocity in all those 30 years is what happened in Omagh, where 28 people lost their lives, some of them children. I have seen many of the deaths, but one of my worst experiences was looking at the coffins of those children, with life in their faces as they lay dead in their coffins.
As the Prime Minister rightly said, the objective of the people who did that was to derail the agreement that had been endorsed so overwhelmingly, not by this House alone, but by the people, north and south. The powerful reaction of the people—the people of Omagh in particular, but the people north and south—demonstrated that our common humanity entirely transcended the divisions of our people.
It is our duty now to translate that common humanity into reality by working to implement the agreement that others tried to derail, to create a society in which the differences of our people are fully respected and in which we work together—and, by doing so, to build an eternal monument to those who have lost their lives on the streets of Omagh: that they will be the last generation to have so suffered.
I received a copy of the legislation that is before us just as I arrived here. It is detailed, and very important. Given the statements about it that have been made by leading lawyers and human rights groups, my party and I will have to study it in depth before responding to it; we should not respond in a hurry. I call on everyone,

however, to give full support to the authorities on both sides of our border, so that those who carried out this terrible atrocity can be brought to justice.

The Prime Minister: I fully share the vision of the future that the hon. Gentleman has set out, and has done so much to promote. As for the legislation, of course it is important. It very much follows what I said when I went to Omagh myself, but of course it is important for us to study it, assess it and see how it works. That is precisely why we shall have to keep it under review and renew it each time, as a House. There is that built-in mechanism to ensure that it works properly, and in the way we intended it to work.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement. On top of today's Bill, however, can he be more specific about the improvement in security co-operation with the Irish Government since Omagh, to which the Secretary of State referred in an article in The Observer on Sunday?

The Prime minister: without going into the details of the co-operation—which I know the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do—I can say that the actual working together of the Garda and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the services on either side of the border, has been immensely close. That has applied both to the attempt to track down the people responsible for this—to track down the members of this organisation—and, in particular, to working extremely closely in respect of any intelligence that can be gathered to prevent any similar attacks in the future.
Most of the people I have talked to who are engaged in the police or the security services in Northern Ireland say that the co-operation is closer than anything they have ever known. I think that—as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said a moment ago—that co-operation is in part driven and underpinned by the will of the people, north and south, which is the importance of the Good Friday agreement and the referendum. Those two elements, in combination, give us the best chance.

Mr. Tony Benn: While sharing everything that the Prime Minister said about the horror of the Omagh bombing, may I plead with him to take an historical perspective? Violence has characterised the relations between Britain and Ireland over many years, and many of us have sat in this House when anti-terrorist legislation has been introduced, yet the only gain there has ever been was when this Government had the wisdom to open negotiations with the nationalists, which made possible the Belfast agreement, the referendum, the Assembly and the prospect of peace in the future. May I urge the Prime Minister not to take any action that might look as if it were going back to some of the old legislation, which was repressive and ineffective, and did not contribute?
On the wider question of terrorism world wide, the world was shocked by the bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. However, I was astonished that the Prime Minister supported the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan, as it is contrary to the UN charter and international law that any country can bomb any other country in reprisal for anything done to its own nationals in a third country.
I finish on the historical perspective. Will the Prime Minister remember that, 100 years ago today, 10,000 Sudanese were killed by the Army under General Kitchener? We may not remember that, but people in Sudan do. They were bitterly disappointed that we did not support them when their factory near Khartoum was bombed by the United States, which has been quite unwilling to agree to an inspection of that site to see whether the bombing was justified.

The Prime Minister: On my right hon. Friend's latter point, I am afraid that I simply have to disagree with him. Countries that are state sponsors of terrorism must recognise that action will be taken if they sponsor terrorism and if terrorists based in their country take action against their nationals abroad. I believe that article 51 of the UN charter provides a justification for that. I also point out that, although no one was killed in the strike against the Al Shifa factory in Sudan, almost 300 people were killed in Kenya and Tanzania in those bomb outrages—95 per cent. of whom were innocent passers-by.
On my right hon. Friend's first point, my view is that we must learn from our history, but we should not be mesmerised by or live in it. We must recognise the importance of targeting the measures carefully and of taking account of the possibility of a backlash in the republican community. That we have done.
We must also recognise the two big differences in the present situation. First, we march in step with the Irish Government. As we have said before, that is a huge difference from previous situations, and a huge difference from the history of the past 30 years and measures which have been taken. Secondly, we are not dealing with terrorist groups with a political basis, as was the case with the old terrorist groups which operated in Ireland for a long period. They had real support, real votes, and a political basis. We are talking about people who have no support anywhere and no votes, yet are prepared to use weapons of terror. In the circumstances, we must be prepared for a carefully moderated, sensible and well-targeted response.
We can have all the political processes in the world, and we can have complete agreement across all the mainstream political parties—indeed, we have that now in Northern Ireland—but the terrorists could carry on operating. In the exceptional circumstances that exist, I believe that we are right and justified in saying that we have a political process that must work, but that we must take exceptional measures to mop up the last recalcitrant and renegade terrorist groups that are prepared to threaten the future of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: In fully endorsing what the Prime Minister said about the vile acts perpetrated on the people of Omagh and about the real and urgent need to bring those responsible to book, may I say that the time allotted for scrutiny of the Bill is totally and utterly inadequate? If there has been an intention for some time to combat international terrorism, why has it not been mentioned in any Queen's Speech since I have been a Member of this place?

The Prime Minister: On the last point, measures to make conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism abroad a criminal offence here have been discussed in this House

over a long period. The previous Government had a Bill. There was a private Member's Bill; there was a discussion about that. We have always made it clear that we support action on that front. I think that it is the right time to do it, given that we have measures that we are taking against terrorism ourselves, and measures that are necessary to defeat terrorism abroad, examples of which we have seen just in the past few weeks.
As for the time for scrutiny of the Bill, again, let me emphasise: the parts of this that we have done—evidence of a senior police officer being admissible and inferences that can be drawn from the refusal of people to mention facts that they later rely on—were, of course, highlighted in precisely the terms in which they are in this legislation in the statement that I made at the time of Omagh; both of them are here before us.
We have said that we will review at greater length other measures that have been proposed by the police and security services on both sides of the border, precisely because we have been concerned not to rush into legislation, but in the end those two specific things that are in the Bill are very carefully measured and very carefully targeted. They march us, as I say, completely step by step and in line with what is happening in the Irish Republic.
People simply would not understand it if the Irish Government were meeting today and the Dail was meeting in session passing laws that allowed them to act against these terrorist groups in the Republic of Ireland, and we were not meeting here to do the same in the United Kingdom's House of Commons.

Mr. Denis MacShane: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, I also thank you, Madam Speaker, for agreeing to the recall of Parliament, because, unlike the biblical law of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a body for a body, this shows law being passed in this Parliament to deal with terrorism. I also welcome the fact that we are meeting at the same time as the Irish Parliament—again, I think, for the first time. Perhaps in our British Isles, the different nations, peoples and faiths can at long last learn to live and to co-operate together.
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this legislation is fully in accord with the European convention on human rights and other international conventions, and that what we are about here is the creation of some new international law, acting jointly with Ireland and other sovereign democracies, against that threat of terrorism?

The Prime Minister: Yes. Our view is that it is fully in line with the European convention on human rights—in particular, it is in line with the safeguards that arise as a result of the Murray case before the European Court of Human Rights. We believe that it is, as I say, a targeted and judicious response to the acts of terrorism with which we are faced.

Mr. David Trimble: I endorse everything that has been said by hon. Members about the atrocity in Omagh, particularly the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), but in looking at the situation at Omagh does the Prime Minister agree that the tragedy there came as no surprise and that there had been, over the previous months, a series of bombs planned and planted by the group calling itself


the Real IRA? Indeed, just a fortnight before Omagh, a bomb in Banbridge could have had exactly the same consequences. It too had a misleading warning and could have resulted in carnage, had not a member of the RUC been vigilant enough to spot what had happened.
As the Prime Minister has said, this was done, obviously, with the intention of destroying the hopes that people in Northern Ireland have that we are coming out of violence and coming into a new era in which people will be able to work together, and I agree entirely with what he has said about the need to ensure that those hopes are not frustrated. I am sure that by far the greater number of people in Northern Ireland are determined to ensure that those hopes are realised, but, in pressing on with the agreement, does the Prime Minister agree that it is important that we ensure that the integrity of the agreement is sustained? There are a number of things that are linked together and the need for those who have been involved in terrorism to show they have left that clearly and decisively behind is underlined by what has happened. That is why it is necessary for us to focus again on issues such as decommissioning.
On that, I welcome the step that has been taken today, provided that it is only, as it should be, a first step and that it will be soon followed by other steps. We, of course, will take what opportunities we have to press on the leadership of Sinn Fein and other paramilitary-related parties the need for them to take this issue seriously now.
Is there not also a case for the Government to look more closely at some of their own procedures? I am thinking about prisoner releases. There are safeguards, but there is a need to scrutinise them more carefully to ensure that none of those released goes to augment any dissident group. Is the Prime Minister disturbed to learn, as I was, that a leading member of the Real IRA was released—I think by the Irish Government—some months ago as a so-called confidence-building measure at the request of Sinn Fein? We must ensure that that does not happen again.
We shall deal later with various security measures that are being brought forward. The Prime Minister has mentioned other matters. The House will be aware that the Chief Constable of the RUC has mentioned half a dozen measures that he considers important. I appreciate that the Government are looking at that list, although it is the same as the previous Chief Constable's list. We have been waiting five years for one Government or another to take action on it. Can we have an indication of the time scale on which the Government will consider the measures?
The Prime Minister has referred to the desirability of moving in tandem with the Irish Republic. I welcome that, but he should bear it in mind that the Irish Government have said that they do not rule out resorting to internment without trial if that becomes necessary. My judgment is that, if the measures that are being enacted in the Dail and, we hope, here in the next few days are ineffective—as I fear that they will be—the Irish Government will want to move to that quickly, particularly if there is another major incident. It would be gravely embarrassing if the Irish Government were prepared to intern but found that they could not do so because there were no parallel measures in the United Kingdom, allowing members of the Real IRA to flee to a safe haven in the United Kingdom. Must we not ensure that that does not happen?

The Prime Minister: On that last point, as we have shown today, we can act without delay if necessary. I have made it clear that we rule nothing out for the future. My judgment was simply that this is not the right moment. I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the Good Friday agreement. For the integrity of that agreement, all parts of it have to be implemented in full. The existing safeguards on prisoner releases have to be followed through and obeyed. We shall ensure that they are.
The measures put forward by the Chief Constable of the RUC will be looked at. A working party is examining them with the Chief Constable, in conjunction with what is happening in the Irish Republic. That can form part of the review of terrorist legislation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will bring forward in the not-too-distant future.
I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman says about not frustrating people's hopes. I congratulate him on the work that he has done over some time to move the process forward. Over the past 15 months, I have learnt that there are two groups of people when it comes to Northern Ireland: there are those who say that there are tremendous difficulties, therefore it is all hopeless and we should give up; and there are those who say that there are tremendous difficulties, so let us overcome them. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman is in the latter group shows his courage and commitment to the process.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the Prime Minister surely was not implying that article 51 covered a country sending cruise missiles to another country without warning.
Was the American evidence on the role of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory taken on trust before British support was given? Have the Government been shown compelling and convincing evidence on that point since? What support did Britain give at the United Nations to the Sudanese request for an early site inspection of the pharmaceutical factory? Would the Government consider sending a team from Porton Down to make a technical assessment? What steps will the Foreign Office take to resume diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level with Khartoum, bearing in mind the exposed nature of the British community in Sudan and the UK's close involvement with the UN relief work?

The Prime Minister: On my hon. Friend's last point, the staff were withdrawn after two of them were actually ordered to leave by the authorities there. The view taken was that it was best for the protection of the rest that they leave. The Americans do have strong evidence of attempts to manufacture chemical weapons in Sudan for use by terrorists, and that evidence has indeed been shared with us. Indeed, bin Laden himself lived in Sudan for some four years and has retained extremely close links with the regime.
Those states that sponsor terrorism must expect to have action taken against them. In respect of the Al Shifa plant, no one was actually killed; but, as a result of those bombs that went off in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, almost 300 people were butchered—wholly innocent people. It


is important and it is justified for states to take action to make it quite clear that those who take terrorist action against their citizens will not do so with impunity.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to associate myself with the remarks made today by hon. Members on both sides of the House in respect of those who have been bereaved and those who are still suffering from the results of the Omagh massacre. We are all indebted to the hon. Member for the constituency, the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), for his moving and touching speech. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) mentioned that he was moved by the coffins and the little corpses of babes. I was moved by the coffins that could not be opened, because they contained only parts of the bodies recovered. As one of my own Sabbath-school teachers was one of the victims, it was brought home to me in a very real way indeed.
No doubt, in the coming debate, there will be an opportunity to deal with the matters on the minds of Members from Northern Ireland, but I should like to put one point to the Prime Minister. I am sure that, when he read the reaction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the atrocity, he was aware that four men were arrested who were known by the security forces to be members of the so-called Real IRA: I refer to the brothers O'Hagen, Francis Curran and Shane Mackey. They were released. There is one question on the mind of the people of Northern Ireland today and they would like the Prime Minister to answer it. If the laws that he is now saying we must pass today had already been in operation, could those four men have been kept in custody and brought to trial to prove whether they were guilty or not guilty when the security forces said that they were members of the organisation that committed the atrocity?

The Prime Minister: I cannot comment on individual cases of individual people and it would be wrong if I did so. What I can say is that we believe that the legislation gives us a far better chance of being able, where people are members of the proscribed organisations, to prove that membership, because we have dealt with two of the major problems that the police have with proving such a charge.
I also say that, of course, the very purpose and object of the bomb were to wreck the agreement and produce a violent reaction from others. We all have a responsibility to make sure that that does not happen.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In his statement, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the best way forward is by way of continuing political reform. I agree with him. I also agree whole-heartedly with his view that strong and decisive steps must be taken against those murderous fascists who committed that terrible atrocity. However, he must take cognisance of the genuine and utterly legitimate concerns of many people that the implementation of the legislation might harm the civil liberties of decent ordinary citizens.
We need sustained, methodical police investigation on both sides of the border to track down these dreadful, evil people. The Government must fulfil their promise of the early creation of a human rights commission for Northern Ireland with strong investigative powers. That is surely essential as part of the continuing political reform to which my right hon. Friend referred.

The Prime Minister: It is precisely because of our recognition that, with any such legislation, there will be

genuine, legitimate concerns about whether the balance between strong action and protection of civil liberties is right, that we have taken the measures that we have. Those measures are specific. There are also forfeiture provisions, but in evidential terms the changes are twofold: the admissibility in evidence of the word of a senior police officer, and the right to draw inferences from the failure to mention certain facts. Both those powers are carefully circumscribed. I think that we have got the balance right.
The human rights position is set out in the agreement and we will proceed accordingly. There is now a different context in which the British and Irish Governments take measures together. In the past 20 or 30 years, measures taken by the United Kingdom Government were fiercely resisted, not only by large parts of the community in Northern Ireland, but by many in the Republic, where they had no political support and there was no political base for them. The context today is completely different.
I urge on my hon. Friend, as I did on my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), that, while we must learn the lessons of the past—that is why we are moving in step with the Irish Government and the measures are so carefully targeted—we need to have an answer to the problem of small groups of people who will carry on with terror irrespective of the political process. The ordinary, decent people who expressed their democratic will in referendums in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have a right to the protection of the law in so far as we are able to give it to them.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I, too, welcome the sensitive manner in which the Prime Minister expressed the sympathy of the House for the victims at Omagh, but certain aspects of the Bill are disturbing in the light of what he himself has said. There seems to be a distinction between small terrorist groups committing acts of terror with no political support and larger groups of terrorists who may, broadly speaking, have such support.
Do we now have a two-tier system under which the proposed measures will apply to groups such as the Real IRA but not to Provisional IRA, which, through its alter ego, Sinn Fein, has considerable public support? Since the Belfast agreement was signed, there have been 37 murders: 28 at Omagh and nine outside that outrage. There have been 29 punishment shootings and about 57 brutal beatings, inflicting terrible injuries. Almost every one of those crimes was committed by what might be called the good terrorist groupings that are party to the agreement: Provisional IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries. It seems that the new provisions would not apply to what might be called the major terrorist groupings prior to the advent of the Real IRA. Will the police be called upon to make a preliminary determination as to whether one is a wicked terrorist of a small group that is outside the process, or a good terrorist who belongs to a group within the process and, having so determined, apply the new provisions? If that be the case, we are entering a two-tier system of terrorist opposition and a two-tier system of the administration of justice, and many people would regard that as a grave mistake.

The Prime Minister: Obviously, we have to make a judgment in respect of any group about whether it qualifies under the provisions. There is a provision, which


we are entitled and able to use should the situation change in respect of any group, to add that group to this list. It is simply not correct to say that there is a division between one group of terrorists which operates according to one rule and another group which operates according to different rules. There is provision to change the list if that becomes the right thing to do. Our judgment in the round is the one that we have expressed about the activities of the Real IRA and other groups.

Kali Mountford: Justice for victims cannot be achieved by providing a safe haven for terrorists; nor can it be achieved by miscarriages of justice such as have occurred in the past. I welcome the Prime Minister's words about the admission of evidence and about the European convention on human rights. What further assurance can he give that the process will lead to a full and fair trial so that justice can be done and be seen to be done?

The Prime Minister: The short answer is that the standard and burden of proof remain exactly the same. As I have said, this is an attempt to amend the law simply in these two respects. They are important respects, because we know perfectly well that, on occasions, it has not been possible to convict people of these offences, precisely because of gaps in the law. We have very carefully attempted to steer a path between some knee-jerk reaction, by which we would bring in a whole range of measures that, on examination, cannot be justified, and ending up not acting at all in circumstances where people would not expect that. The fact that that is the collective view, not just of this Government but of the Irish Government too, is some earnest not merely of our good intent, but of the fact that we have been able to deliver the intent in practical legislation.

Mr. Michael Mates: May I say with the greatest respect to the Prime Minister that what he said a few moments ago about internment is wrong? It is not a matter of judgment: it is a matter of fact that internment's only use is as an element of surprise and a weapon of surprise if a situation arises in which it has to be used. We all hope that that will not happen; but if it should we would be in a ludicrous position, because the Irish Government would be ready to exercise that surprise and act decisively but we would have to come here to debate the matter for a couple of days, during which all that we should be doing is bolting the doors on empty stables. Will the Prime Minister reflect on that and perhaps consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary? I make the point seriously. We are rightly following the Irish and agreeing with them on joint measures for the island. This is a glaring exception and we ought to put it right.

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with that view, for the reasons that I have expressed. It is a matter of

judgment as to whether reintroducing internment at present would help the situation. The hon. Gentleman was part of the previous Government for a long period and I notice that they did not do that. [Interruption.] They did not actually introduce the power, they did not actually implement the power, and I believe that the judgment that we have made is the right judgment. If we got that judgment wrong, the danger would be precisely the danger to which we have drawn attention—that there would be set up a series of reactions in other parts of the community that would undermine the very thing that we want to achieve.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We must now proceed with the business of the House.

BILL PRESENTED

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORISM AND CONSPIRACY)

Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cook, Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Adam Ingram and Mr. Alun Michael, presented a Bill to make provision about procedure and forfeiture in relation to offences concerning proscribed organisations, and about conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time today, and to be printed [Bill 244].

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am given to understand by the Clerks in the Public Bill Office that there may be some difficulty in tabling amendments for the Committee stage where the amendments, though going to the objectives that the Prime Minister has just outlined, are thought to be inconsistent with the long title. Is there any way in which we can ensure that, in the course of these rather rushed proceedings, we have the flexibility to ensure that the Prime Minister's objectives are achieved?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, the Chairman of Ways and Means will select amendments in due course. There will be ample time for such amendments to be tabled and for hon. Members to be guided by the Clerks because they will be accepted during Second Reading. The Chairman of Ways and Means will be generous in the selection of amendments so that there is proper scrutiny of the legislation.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
That this House, at its rising tomorrow, do adjourn till Monday 19th October.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Business of the House (Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That—

1.(1) Proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill shall be taken and concluded at today's sitting; and for this purpose—

(a) as soon as the proceedings on this Motion are concluded, the order for Second Reading of the Bill shall be read;
(b) notices of amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time;
(c) when the Bill is read a second time it shall stand committed to a Committee of the whole House, and the House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill;
(d) proceedings in Committee on clauses 1 to 4 shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, three hours after the conclusion of proceedings on Second Reading;
(e) remaining proceedings on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, six hours after the conclusion of proceedings on Second Reading;
(f) at the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting the Speaker shall adjourn the House without putting any Question.

(2) For the purpose of concluding proceedings in accordance with sub-paragraphs 1(d) and (e), the Chair shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(d) on successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions.

(5) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.

2. At the sitting tomorrow—

(a) any message received from the Lords relating to the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill shall be considered forthwith;
(b) proceedings on any message shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after commencement;
(c) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she has notified the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses; and
(d) the Speaker shall then adjourn the House without putting any Question.

3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at the sittings today and tomorrow.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I regret the fact that this motion appears on the Order Paper. We have heard a most profound and important statement from the Prime Minister today, giving voice to

the views of many in Britain about the fears that we as a people suffer in the face of terrorism, and to the suffering that was experienced by one of the communities within the United Kingdom.
This is a land of laws and of due process, and that due process applies to the House of Commons. I am here only because of the liberties secured for me by preceding generations. We are all conscious of that as elected representatives of defined parts of this realm. This is important, therefore, because the process by which we conduct our business is the very process that has secured our liberty.
I say this with the greatest regret because I understand the urgencies that we often feel in our fear in the face of terrorism. We are being asked to consider, in the shortest possible space of time, measures that affect our profound liberties and our civil and criminal justice systems. That is a corruption of the ideal. We have a duty to weigh most solemnly and carefully every contention that is set before the House.
The Standing Orders of the House set out the way in which, by tradition and custom, that has been done by the House. A Bill is deposited before the House so that we, the elected representatives of the citizens—the generality of us all—may consider and weigh the contentions in it. All day yesterday, I, along with many hon. Members, telephoned the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office and demanded to know when the draft of the Bill could be seen: first, it was to be by 12 o'clock, then before 2 o'clock, then some time between half-past 4 and 5 o'clock; finally, it reached the Vote Office at ten minutes to 6 yesterday.
Until ten minutes to 6 yesterday, all that I knew about the Bill was what I believe the country will come to detest more than anything—the manipulation, the spin, the press releases and all the covert ways of trying to secure the legislation of this country without reference to Parliament. I knew only what I was told by anonymous press spokesmen.
The matter goes further than that. We were told with a sort of laudable intent that the Bill would be draconian. Leaving all that aside, that is how long it took the House, assembled in London, to gain possession of the Bill. I am a representative from the west midlands, but how long would it take those from Scotland, Northumberland, Cornwall, Wales and Ulster to gain possession of the Bill?
We are assembled at half-past 2 to discuss the Bill. Before us is a motion that insists that we conduct an examination of the intents of the Bill and weigh the processes of the House. Can that process be borne? Is it worth bearing it, and for what purpose?
The House should reject the motion. In the face of terrorism, we should not abandon the freedom to discuss these matters. It is essential that we think about them. This is a new House of Commons, and it has almost become a House of Commons of acclamation. The contentions that we shall consider on Second Reading are such that we will come to regret them if we accept them in their present form.
I have been in the House for 19 years. I have seen every manner of expression and hallelujah and law. I opposed them as best I could, and I noticed that I had the support of the Prime Minister when he was shadow Home Secretary; I noted the words of the present Home Secretary in respect of these matters.
On 30 October last year, the Home Secretary gave us to understand that a consultation paper on terrorism would be issued by the beginning of the year. Throughout the year we have inquired about it—it was to be available early this year, then a couple of months later and then a couple of months after that. We were told not to worry. We were told that in October a consultation paper would be issued on some of the principles contained in the Bill. The Prime Minister now says that he cannot promise us when the consultation paper will be issued—and it is only a consultation paper, not a Bill or a White Paper.
Throughout the year, the Home Office and its officials told us that the issues involved were dynamite. We were told that the matters would have to be weighed, and the views of the House would be needed. Yet the Bill is drawn up as though there were no need for consultation or for the House to reflect on the measures proposed to deal with terrorism.
I take the matter extremely seriously. I want the House to reflect on it. Will we have added one jot? What will we have accomplished by assembling at the beginning of September? Why have we assembled? The stately order of our business does not require us to be here. I noticed that in his statement, which at times was more like a speech in a Second Reading debate, the Prime Minister did not make a serious case for the House being assembled today and called out of turn. He said that the Irish Dail is sitting today. I wish the Dail well, and I hope that we march with it in this Bill. The Dail may have prepared the ground for it, but we as a House have clearly not done so.
This is no way for the House to conduct its business. The Government are acting manipulatively. The House does not countenance terrorism, but we have been knee-jerked here. There is much talk about considered, rational legislation, but all too little ability for the House to consider it reasonably.
Hon. Members should reflect on the contents of the Order Paper and on what we are asked to do. How do we table an amendment to the Bill? The Order Paper states:
notices of amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted before the Bill by the Clerks at the Table has been read a second time".
The Bill was read the First time a few minutes ago, so the House has had only a few minutes to table amendments properly and in good order. We have all served on Committees and are familiar with the Committee stage of Bills. We may want to table amendments during the Committee stage, but the Order Paper does not allow for that. How do we deal with amendments? Are they to be tabled four or five minutes before the end of Second Reading? If an hon. Member tables a manuscript amendment, how will the rest of the House obtain a copy of it? How will we be able to read the amendment and relate it to the content of the Bill?
I am astounded that the Leader of the House did not think it worth her while to explain to the House why there should be a guillotine that would condense discussion of the entire Bill into six hours. Clauses 1 to 4 are to be dealt with in the first three hours, and the rest—Report and Third Reading—is to be disposed of in another three hours. How do we treat those assembled in the other place—the Law Lords of this land, some of the finest

legal minds? How do we treat any amendment that they deign to send to us? All Lords matters will be disposed of in one hour.
I plead with the House. Ours is a great nation, a nation founded on freedom and liberty. We are the elected representatives of this nation. We should have a pride in our process, for in our process we defend our liberty in the face of these terrorists.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Lest it should be thought that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) speaks alone, I should say that I have grave reservations about the speed with which the Bill is to be debated. I hope to move an amendment that will deal with some of the points that particularly concern me, but I believe that the House of Commons ought to give itself time to think.
In a long career in the House, I have realised that, brilliant though we may be, we are not the repository of all wisdom and that occasionally there are those outside in the United Kingdom who can give us advice and help and point out that what we believe to be targeted and precise may in legislative terms be imprecise, vague and, in the final analysis, not worthy of a democratic assembly. I hope that we will think. I am aware of the pressure on Members as a result of the horrendous and appalling events, but I hope that we will think seriously that, when we rush through legislation and cease to put on the statute book ideas and views that have been properly tested by the time to debate, to examine and, indeed, often to understand what we are doing, we are not fulfilling our proper task.
I have very grave reservations about the way in which our proceedings today are being organised. I hope that it will be clear that they stem not from objection to the need to do something urgent about the horrendous terrorism but from something stronger that can be summed up in a very simple phrase—my misgivings about legislation that is rushed and probably will not, in the final analysis, be capable of doing that which we demand of it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: My party received a fax at about 10 o'clock yesterday morning from the Secretary of State to say that, if we rang a number at Stormont, we would be supplied with a copy of the Bill. I immediately rang that number and the civil servant informed me that the Bill had been printed, but that changes were being made and that it had to be completely reprinted. I was told that it would be available shortly after noon. I rang again at noon and he said that he was sorry, but it would not be available until later on. It was only later last night that we received a copy. I must say that the Northern Ireland Office faxed us a full copy.
Hon. Members know my attitude to terrorism, but terrorism is not the issue before the House. The issue is how we deal with business that is very, very important. Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that the Bill affects all my constituents: it does not affect only people who call themselves the Real IRA. Anybody can be lifted under the terms of the Bill. Therefore, I as a representative of those people have a right to defend their interests, and where should I defend them? I should do so in the House.
If we are to meet today, why did we not have a two-day sitting? Why bring us all here and then more or less say, "Snub your nose at the House of Lords for it does not


matter what it says anyway"? If we had any respect for the other House, we would wait and hear its report and debate it. We should have had two days at this Bill.
The leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party made a similar point when he said that his party would like more time to consider the Bill. In the circumstances, I should have thought that we should have as much time as possible to consider it, and there are ways in which that could be done. I therefore agree entirely with the hon. Members who spoke before me on that issue.

Mr. Tony Benn: I agree very strongly with the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who spoke before me—an unusual combination. We say that the Bill attacks civil liberties, but the attack on civil liberties has already begun because Members of Parliament are being denied the time to examine the Bill, to consult their constituents and experts, and to refer to the initial Acts of Parliament that are being amended. How can Members suddenly pick up the fact that the Bill amends the prevention of terrorism Act or the law on criminal conspiracy?
We are being used to rubber-stamp what a Government have decided to do, but they do not know what they want to do. They have had two weeks to draft the Bill. They could have published it in draft. The Liberal Democrats' leader said that he knows that changes were made. He is luckier than I am because he must have seen an earlier draft. If he had seen an earlier draft, he could have tabled an amendment before the Bill came before the House. What a way to treat Parliament! We are being treated as though we were the Supreme Soviet, simply summoned to carry through the instructions of the Central Committee.
Whatever the merits of the Bill—we are not discussing them now—it is an absolute affront to the House and to those whom we represent to say that we have to pass the motion by 10 pm. I made inquiries at the Whips Office. The Chief Whip will know that I rang No. 12 time and again before lunch. I was told that there was not even going to be a guillotine motion, so that has appeared at the last minute.
It is time that hon. Members stood up for our right to represent the people who send us here. On those grounds, I strongly support the speeches of the hon. Members who spoke before me. I think it is a view shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who said that he would be unable to support the Bill because of the shortage of time, although on reflection he might decide that he wished to support or amend it. I urge the House to move for more time.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I wrote to you in the middle of August asking for the recall of Parliament to debate the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan. I welcome the recall, but not just to be forced to do what I am told in respect of a Bill that I have not seen and cannot consider and about which, in any case, many people want a longer debate.

Sir Peter Emery: No one wants to undermine the unity that exists across the House against terrorism. None of the speeches that we have heard has

sought to do that, but, procedurally, what we are asked to do is contrary to all aspects of "Erskine May" and our Standing Orders. It is wrong.
We can march in time with the Dail. Let us have Second Reading today, but let us come back in a week—the period that is usually allowed—during which time amendments could be tabled and the matter could be properly considered. We are again setting a precedent that is wrong.
It is not as if we are going to war. In some instances, the House is recalled specifically for that reason, but whether this Bill were passed tomorrow or next week would make not one jot of difference, except that a week's delay would mean that it could be considered fully and properly, as the structures of the House have always demanded. Why are we being so rushed? No reason has been given. It seems that we are thrusting to one side all the House's normal procedures for no reason.

Audrey Wise: During Prayers, I obtained a copy of the Bill from the Vote Office. The document that I was handed stated that it was a draft. Like many other hon. Members, I have just come back from my holidays. I telephoned home to find out what was happening in general, was told that Parliament was to be recalled because of Omagh and was satisfied that that was proper. I want action to be taken against terrorism and terrorists, as do we all. However, clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill do not deal with or arise from Omagh.
I received a letter from the Chief Whip, or party officials, telling me that the proposals—on conspiracy to commit terrorism overseas—were supported by the Government when they were in opposition. In February 1997, those proposals were put to the House in a private Member's Bill, which had the support of the then Tory Government, but the House failed twice to provide a quorum to pass the Bill. The Tories, who wanted it, could not provide the quorum and no Labour Member went into the Lobby to provide one on either occasion. If that was Labour supporting the measure in opposition, I would not like to see us opposing anything. In fact, it was one of the most effective examples of opposition during that Tory Government's period in office.
I feel deeply affronted that Omagh, on which I want the House to speak with a united voice, is being mixed up with other items. If action were taken or planned in this country, for instance against the Taliban in Afghanistan, that would be subject to the Bill—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she is making a Second Reading speech and we are dealing with the business motion.

Audrey Wise: I appeal to you, Madam Speaker, to those on the Government Front Bench and to anyone with influence, to disentangle those issues when we discuss the matter and, as has been said from so many quarters, to give us more time to discuss these important issues.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I approached the Prime Minister on behalf of my party to ask for a recall of the House because we were tired of listening to Government through the press and tired of the concept


that we were to tackle terrorism in Northern Ireland through secondary legislation, which might not stand up. Regrettably, now that we have been recalled, we have discovered that, for whatever reason or judgment, an opportunity to bring us into line with the Republic has been set aside. It is important that we have time to debate the matter and learn the mind of the House properly.

Mr. Bernie Grant: I am also concerned about the way in which a matter of this importance has been handled. I should have expected some notice, but, given the situation, I can appreciate why we did not have it. I do not appreciate the fact that there has not even been an opportunity for members of the parliamentary Labour party to discuss the matter. I wanted to do some research to find out whether the United States Congress has any legislation similar to the Bill that the Government are trying to push through. That is important and it is germane. The Prime Minister says that he is walking hand in hand with the Irish Government. I want to know why, or whether, he is walking hand in hand with the American Government.

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are straying into a Second Reading debate. The Bill is available and we are ready for the Second Reading. We cannot marshal the amendments until this motion is agreed, so I hope that the House understands the position in which it is placing itself.

Mr. A. J. Beith: You indeed have a difficult task, Madam Speaker, in producing before the end of Second Reading a list of marshalled amendments that the House can use. However, the Government have got themselves into that difficulty, with their decision to add to the Bill provisions on conspiracy that are not confined to terrorism.
The conspiracy provisions are extremely wide, and in my view it would take more than their portion of the three hours referred to in the motion to consider them properly, bearing in mind the fact that the second half of the time allocated is for clause 5 and the remainder of the Bill, together with Report stage, if we have one, and any other proceedings. Within those three hours, all that has to be dealt with.
Many hon. Members did not expect to find those provisions in the Bill, and therefore have not had the opportunity to consult widely on them. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), our Chief Whip, attempted to negotiate a satisfactory outcome through the usual channels, but the view widespread among my hon. Friends is that it will not be possible to do justice to the important Northern Ireland provisions of the Bill and still leave enough opportunity to consider the rest of it.
We all have to recognise that some of our cherished procedures sometimes have to be cut short so that we can deal with emergencies. That argument runs for the first part of the Bill, but it does not run effectively for the second half of it, which could have been introduced at a later date. Precisely for that reason, I find myself unable to recommend that my hon. Friends support the motion.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: In support of what has already been said to you, Madam Speaker, may I draw your attention to one matter of importance that has not been mentioned? The Bill affects the liberty of the subject, yet, because of the speed with which it has been drafted, the drafting is a lamentation. I have read a good many statutes in my time, and I have no hesitation in saying that this is one of the worst that I have ever seen.
By way of a soupcon, may I—it is a very short quotation, Madam Speaker—offer this delicacy from subsection (6) of the proposed new section 1A that clause 5 would insert into the Criminal Law Act 1977:
In the application of this Part of this Act to an agreement in the case of which each of the above conditions is satisfied"—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am quite capable of reading the Bill, which is now available in its final form. The hon. and learned Gentleman is raising minute Committee points. He has every right to do so, but at the right time.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take his seat until I have given him a little guidance? We are discussing the business motion at this stage, not the Bill. No part of the Bill can be considered until I have the business motion.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: May I clarify the point that I am trying to make, Madam Speaker? I am not talking about the merits of the clause from which I quoted; I cannot do so, because I cannot decipher it. Having spent a great deal of time trying to read it, bringing to it what legal experience I have, I find it completely incomprehensible. One of the reasons why it is incomprehensible is the unseemly speed with which the Bill has been drafted.
That utterly incomprehensible clause—I invite hon. Members to read it at their leisure as, following your order, Madam Speaker, I may not read it myself—would have the most profound effect on the liberty of the subject in this country in respect of what are purported to be agreements to commit offences overseas.
The Bill is not in a fit condition to be debated by the House—

Madam Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Bill at present; we are discussing the business motion. I hope that hon. Members will keep that in mind.

Mr. Alan Clark: I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and I ask the House to oppose the business motion and not to give it any consideration. I am fortified in my contention by the fact that the deputy leader of the Liberal party has decided that his own party should oppose it—despite the fact that the motion carries the signature of his Chief Whip.
I would not seek to match the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, but I would say that this is an example of the contempt in which the


Prime Minister holds the Chamber, and which he has demonstrated almost from the first day we assembled after the general election. We are being used simply as a rubber stamp. The news is released by leak, by briefing, so that ordinary Members of the House read about it for the first time in the newspapers as they are on the way to the House. It has already been released to Lobby journalists; it has already been the subject of briefings. The meat of what is proposed has already been determined.
We are simply not being consulted, and we do not have time properly to discuss and debate the Bill. The whole House should reject the business motion because, in the fulness of time, this experience will be repeated on many occasions.

Dr. Nick Palmer: I hesitate to question the judgment of hon. Members who have spoken, who, on my calculation, have between them more than 200 years' experience in the House. However, I must say, as a relatively new Member, that the broader population would be incredulous if we accepted the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), in which he questioned whether we should have been recalled, and even more incredulous if we said that we were such slow readers that it would take us another week to consider the proposals.
I agree with some of the reservations that have been expressed, to which I should like to return during discussion on the Bill, but I believe that people expect us to march in step with the Dail on this and consider the issue today and tomorrow, because it is seen as an urgent issue and it requires an urgent response from Parliament.

Mr. William Cash: Some days ago I argued, in the light of what I believed was coming up in the Bill, that it was an outrageous contempt of the House for us to be treated in the way that we have been in the past few days. That feeling has been made even worse by today's occurrences.
The Government have determined on a course of action in the light of their extremely large majority. I say to the Prime Minister that I fear that, by attempting to railroad the Bill through, he may achieve the exact opposite of the objective that he seeks. I support the principle of the legislation, but I do not support the manner in which it is being enacted.
It is part and parcel of the procedures of the House that we have an opportunity to make amendments. I raised a point with you, Madam Speaker, concerning the long title. It is not enough for the Chairman of Ways and Means to exercise an attitude in the selection of amendments. The key question is whether it is within the order of the House for amendments that are inconsistent with the long title to be moved.
I believe that there is a serious problem, which goes to the heart of the Bill, and which the Prime Minister may not have fully appreciated. The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which we passed on 28 July, provides for the imposition of a series of conditions and tests when deciding whether prisoners should be released early. The Act clearly states that among those tests is whether the person in question is a member of a

proscribed organisation. The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill changes the burden of the test, in the early parts of the procedure, to the opinion of a police officer plus other evidence.
If the long title needs to be changed to allow us to guarantee that persons who, in the opinion of a police officer and on the basis of the related evidence, are members of proscribed organisations are not released early, the failure to change the long title may create a flaw that defeats the Bill's main objective—to ensure that members of proscribed organisations are not released early. Therefore, there are substantive reasons why we need to know what the Government have in mind regarding the long title.
The argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made about the manner in which the Bill is being dealt with was absolutely justified. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary owe the House an explanation of how we can meaningfully propose or make amendments to the Bill.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: There has been a remarkable cross-party consensus on the Back Benches. I have seen nothing quite like it since I have been in the House, which is not all that long. Nevertheless, lawyers on both sides of the House have advanced sensible arguments about why such rushed legislation is not a good idea. From my short experience in the House, I know that rushed legislation is not good legislation; yet, until 5.50 pm yesterday, it was impossible to obtain a draft copy of the Bill, and I understand that at 2.30 pm today, when the House met, it was still not possible to obtain the final version—certainly it was not possible this morning, when I tried.
What is the urgency? Are we to believe that on Friday, after a rushed Royal Assent, terrorists will start to be charged and locked up by the courts? I doubt it. I would say that the urgency has already been expressed by the Prime Minister, when he said that we must march in step with the Dail. It seems to me that this has much more to do with President Clinton's arrival tomorrow: we must all look as though we are expressing the same opinions, because President Clinton is coming tomorrow.
Most Members of Parliament would support the general thrust of the legislation. I certainly do—although I question why we got rid of internment in April this year, if we now want to introduce such so-called draconian measures. I think it important, however, for the House always to consider legislation sensibly and with time to spare, so that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) pointed out—it can discuss amendments.
This is rushed legislation, and I suspect that it will be bad legislation. I certainly do not believe that the House, the country or the fight against terrorism will benefit from our having passed it in such a rush.

Mr. Peter Brooke: This is not the first time that I have marched shoulder to shoulder with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose original address to the House was extremely eloquent.


I shall not risk your ire, Madam Speaker, by repeating what he said; I shall simply say "Ditto", which was said in the 18th century after an eloquent speech by Mr. Burke.
Like my hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), I waited in the long queue for copies of the Bill yesterday, when we had the impression that it was being changed by the hour. I think that, if the House was to be recalled, the Government might have paid it the compliment of having the legislation ready beforehand.
I want to dwell simply on clauses 5 to 7. In a long passage in his study of the Congress of Vienna, Henry Kissinger remarked on how difficult it was for the 18th century to come to terms with a revolutionary spirit like Napoleon. This age is faced with exactly the same problem in confronting terrorism. The Prime Minister said that clauses 5 to 7 had been lying around until a convenient moment arrived for them to be introduced. In terms of the time that we have to debate clauses 1 to 4, this strikes me as a singularly inconvenient moment. I must ask you, Madam Speaker, whether you would accept a manuscript amendment allowing us to delete those clauses, in order to solve our problems.

Mr. John McAllion: In this short debate, reference has been made to a guillotine motion. Can you confirm, Madam Speaker, that the only curtailment of today's debate will apply to debate on the business motion and the Committee stage, and that the Second Reading debate can continue until any hour, until all Members have had an opportunity to speak on this important Bill?

Mr. John Swinney: It is clear that many members of all political parties in the House are sympathetic to the direction taken by the Bill, but the unease that is emerging throughout the House about the pace at which we are moving should give the Government pause for thought.
This afternoon, I received 14 draft amendments proposed by the Law Society of Scotland. Those important amendments, whose value I have not had time to consider this afternoon, relate to issues such as the opportunity for individuals to consult solicitors, and the importance of a standard of proof in relation to forfeiture orders. I think that the House would benefit from an opportunity to consider those important matters, and I hope that the Home Secretary will have something to say about how that will be done.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope that the Prime Minister—who, understandably, has been unable to stay for the whole debate on the motion—will pay attention to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). The House would be assisted—and, I am sure, the official Opposition would not object—if the Government, through the usual channels, came forward with a proposal to find a way forward.
The essential point is that the Government thought it right yesterday to use a number of hours to make adaptations and, no doubt, improvements to the Bill. The

House would want to have the same opportunity. The Government's White Paper on local government refers to decisions made "outside the ordinary structure". In this case, decisions are being made outside the ordinary structure. For the purposes of law, the places where decisions are made are this Chamber and the Committees of the House.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The points that have been made thus far by parliamentary colleagues show the importance of debate because, as the discussion moves on, so colleagues see the importance of consideration. Many colleagues are coining to the opinion that perhaps clauses 5 and beyond should be excised from the Bill as their provisions lack the urgency that, arguably, should relate to those provisions that refer specifically to Northern Ireland.
In his very eloquent opening, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—a considerable parliamentarian in so many respects—perhaps voiced the concerns of many of us that, in a Bagehot sense, the House is moving from the efficient to the dignified part of the constitution. We are all part of a theatre. We are all meant to play our symbolic roles. I accept the symbolism of the Dail and our Parliament marching together in respect of terrorism. I am less happy to accept the symbolism behind the belief that we have to rush our proceedings through because of the visit of the President of the United States to Ireland.
We are here because of what is deemed to be an urgency. I believe that, following Omagh, there is certainly an urgency in respect of Northern Ireland—that, in my judgment, would be the consensus of the House—and that there are relatively short, clear and targeted amendments in respect of Northern Ireland. I am not so convinced in respect of those matters that, frankly, concern me the most in respect of terrorism.
I was one of those who helped to end the previous Government's attempt to have provisions relating to conspiracy put on the statute book. In that case, they did so through the back door by a private Member's device. They also did not, until the later stages, have the fallback position of the Attorney-General's fiat. Together with those on the then Opposition Front Bench, I agreed that that should be done.
Until very recently, we were told by the Government that the matters referred to in clause 5 and beyond would be the subject of a consultation paper to be brought forward some time in the autumn—essentially because of the constitutional importance of the matters to be discussed in terms of individual citizens' liberties and so on. What has happened in respect of terrorism offences that makes the need to override that consultation paper envisaged by the Government so urgent now? In my judgment, the case has not been made in respect of the latter part of the Bill; it almost certainly has been in respect of the first. I hope that the Government will consider carefully the differences between the two elements.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the Government were to show that they were willing to substitute this business motion with one that allowed time to be allocated for a contemplation of the Bill without clause 5 and beyond, would that be a business motion that you could accept—either by amendment or substitution—so that we could proceed according to the spirit of the House?

Madam Speaker: That is too hypothetical for me to contemplate at this stage. There will be a response from the Government in due course on these matters.

Mr. Ian Taylor: An interesting debate is emerging on this business motion, which has been signed by representatives on both Front Benches and by the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. Therefore, any self-respecting Back Bencher finds himself in a state of confusion about the way in which proceedings are taking place.
There is a separate strand in the debate. The powerful points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) were about any legislation that would be contemplated on a recall of the House such as today's, because of the due processes, as he rightly said. Latterly, certain points have been raised about some clauses in the Bill. I should like to ask the Home Secretary—if he would take a moment just to listen to me—to help some of us in the House. Why is the urgency of the clauses about international terrorism as great as those about Irish terrorism?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now straying into a Second Reading debate. This is a business of the House motion. The responsibility for this lies with the President of the Council, who will respond in due course.

Mr. Taylor: I entirely understand that view, but I must have misexpressed myself. My problem is that, to make a decision on the business of the House motion, I need to get some guidance from the Government on whether there was equal urgency in introducing clauses relating to international terrorism. I do not wish to debate those clauses.
There have been some disturbing events in the world during August relating to such international terrorism. It is also clear that, to achieve peace and stability in Northern Ireland, it is vital to keep the American Government on side. We have not been told, even by the Prime Minister this afternoon, whether there have been discussions between him and the American President about both aspects of the Bill, and whether the American President will make announcements when he arrives here that affect the consequences of terrorism. I ask the Home Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box to help on those important matters; otherwise, it will appear to hon. Members, and certainly to me, that we are legislating on two separate matters—one a matter of urgency and one a matter of convenience.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The Bill is divided into two parts. It would be easy if the President of the Council were to say that the Government were not going to move clauses 5 to 7. That would then end part of the controversy that surrounds the Bill.
Another part of the Bill is important. As I understand the Bill, the part concerning conspiracy will not be part of the consultative paper to be published in the autumn. It will have gone and will not be part of that general discussion. If that is true, we will not be able to return to it; we have been told that one of the major concessions under the Bill is that we will be able to look at it every year.
I urge my hon. Friends to think very carefully on this matter. It would be very easy not to move—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says from a sedentary position that it would still come under Lord Young's committee. Even if that is true, it still does not defeat my earlier argument. It is far easier for the Government to say that they will not move clauses 5 to 7. It gets over that particular difficulty.
In terms of what has been said, can my right hon. Friend the President of the Council say, following discussions with the American Government, to what extent that Government support the limitation of the fifth amendment of the United States constitution and whether the American President is considering introducing similar legislation in the United States to achieve that purpose?

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: This Government are used to using their very large majority to bully through inadequate legislation. They are in danger of doing the same thing again. It is interesting to see the way in which the tone of the House has changed over the past two hours. It is clear to me at least that the House is angered that two different types of terrorism are getting mixed up in one Bill.
Will the Government consider removing all those parts of the legislation to do with international terrorism, so that they can be given clear and thoughtful consideration at some later date? It seems to me that that part of the Bill owes more to President Clinton' s visit than to considerations of good-quality legislation.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I should like to deal as briefly as possible with the important issues that have been raised. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) asked why I did not speak when the motion was moved. I assure him that I meant no discourtesy to the House. I simply did not wish to take the time of the House in debating a matter that would reduce the time available for consideration of the substance of the issues that we are here to discuss. The House would be—

Mr. Shepherd: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me a moment. The proceedings that we are discussing are not unprecedented, although I agree that they are unusual. The House does not normally meet in this way or curtail business as we are doing.

Mr. Shepherd: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, I shall readily give way to him.

Mr. Shepherd: I wanted to refer to a specific point that the right hon. Lady made.

Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He has asked me why I did not speak at the outset of the debate. I did not do so because I had hoped that the House would wish to proceed speedily—as I believe that the country wishes us to do—to discuss the substance of the Bill. I did not want to take up the time of the House. If I have misrepresented the hon. Gentleman, I apologise and I shall give way to him.

Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Lady should have read her motion on the Order Paper. This motion can be debated until 10 o'clock. Putting forward the arguments for the guillotine would not take away the House's opportunity to debate the Bill. The right hon. Lady's argument is nonsense.

Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I gave not an argument, but a reason. He asked me to give a reason, and I have done so. If he finds it unsatisfactory, I am sorry. Of course the motion can be debated, but he will know that we do not debate all the motions that we are able to debate. It seemed right to preserve as much time as possible for the House to debate the substance of the Bill.
Previous Governments have felt that emergency issues had to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. There have been precedents for matters being dealt with in this way. I say that with great respect to the many hon. Members who have made important points in the debate. In April 1996, an emergency was thought to have arisen. The then Government made a statement one day and the House discussed the legislation the next day. With great respect to the right hon. Members for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), I should like to say that they voted for the guillotine motion of their Government to deal with that Bill in one day. The previous Government allowed less time to discuss that measure than we are allowing today. I have great respect for the right and proper feeling of hon. Members that we should consider and take proper decisions, but our course of action is not unprecedented or unknown. No doubt that is one reason why those on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches supported this way of proceeding.

Mr. Alex Salmond: A situation in which not all the signatories to a motion still fully support it might be considered unusual. Having listened to the debate for the past hour, is the right hon. Lady confident that all the signatories to the motion still fully support all its details? If not, should the Government not make some response?

Mrs. Beckett: I have heard nothing that leads me to conclude that those who signed the motion do not continue to support it.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that it is one of the

absurdities of this place that it is thought to be an unforgivable sin not to listen to the arguments of one's colleagues and one's opponents. I know the difficulties that the Government had yesterday. I know that it was difficult to communicate. It was very difficult, when the Bill was not even published, to specify the format of the motion. However, I ask her to listen, as I have done, to the views expressed in the House, particularly on clauses 5 to 7. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) expressed real concerns, about measures that did not naturally fall within the Bill being tacked on. I am sincerely sorry if I have in any way led the right hon. Lady to expect my full support for the whole motion. Having listened to the views of other hon. Members—as I hope that the Government will—I shall withdraw my name from the motion.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear. It was not so clear previously. If he and his party have changed their minds, that is a matter for them. As I am sure he is aware, members of his party, including some of those who have spoken in the debate, were kept informed. As far as I am aware, they were informed at least a week ago that we intended to include the provisions in the Bill. It would not be fair to imply that that came as a source of astonishment to the Liberal Democrats when they arrived at the House today. They are free to change their minds and I am sure that the House notes that they have done so.
Sadly—it is always sad when such matters have to be dealt with in this way—it is not unprecedented for the House to act as the Government propose. We have sought—

Mr. Benn: Much emphasis has been put on clauses 5 to 7. Points that are new to me have been made. Will my right hon. Friend give me a categorical assurance that President Clinton was not told that, by the time that he arrived in Ireland, the provision would be embodied in statute? If that is the reason, let us know it and determine whether it is valid.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not speak for the American Government, but I assure my right hon. Friend that the issue that he raised has formed no part of the Government's consideration and the matter has not been discussed in that way.
I said at the outset that I did not speak at the start of the debate because I did not wish to take up the time of the House—and nor do I wish to do so now. The debate has veered between those who have complained that there has been insufficient time to consider the matters that will be before us in the Bill and those who have complained that they had heard all about the issue in the press before the House had met. Those points of view are valid, but they are not consistent with each other. I have been surprised to hear both expressed by the same person at times. The Bill follows what the Prime Minister said at Omagh. The way in which the Government intended to proceed was extensively discussed and trailed. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and others are rightly concerned about how the provisions will operate should the House decide to pass the Bill. We have made it plain that the matter will be kept under review. It will be examined and will


form part of the consultation process to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has referred, as will all the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to get on.
It has been said during the debate that the matters in the second part of the Bill will not form part of the review. That is not correct.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mrs. Beckett: Any issue on which hon. Members have concerns can be raised—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have a point of order. I think that it is more a point of frustration.

Mr. Cash: I have already raised with the Prime Minister and with you, Madam Speaker, the question whether the long title could be amended. I have had further discussions with the Clerks, and it is clear that there are significant difficulties, unless the Leader of the House is prepared in principle to concede that that could be done—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. It is an intervention on the Leader of the House, who may now continue.

Mrs. Beckett: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman—

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course.

Mrs. Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend was kind enough to refer to me. May I ask her, very seriously, whether the Government will simply accept that the Bill is a complex one which has enormous implications? Even those of us who want to see on the statute book those aspects of the Bill that are most urgently needed in Northern Ireland have real reservations about it. During the next part of the debate, will she seriously consider whether there is a way in which the guillotine can be removed?

Mrs. Beckett: The motion is not, strictly speaking, a guillotine motion. It is a business motion, which was carefully considered so as to try to give a fair amount of time for the debate. It does give more time than has been given for debate on such matters in the past. I believe that the House has the capacity thoroughly and properly to debate the proposals that the Government are making, should the House wish to use and exercise that capacity. I am anxious, as I know my hon. Friend will be, to proceed towards allowing the House to take that step.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Leader of the House accept that some of the implications of clauses 5 to 7 are technical and that Members might be well advised to consult people outside the House before

coming to a conclusion on them? Given that the logic of proceeding at speed stems from the Irish situation and a desire to walk side by side with events in Dublin, and that that same logic does not apply to clauses 5 to 7, cannot the Government amend their position on that part of the Bill?

Mrs. Beckett: There have been recent terrorist events in places other than Omagh and therefore that is not the sole reason why the Government feel it necessary to put before the House the prospect of acting with some speed. The right hon. Gentleman says that the matters in the latter part of the Bill raise certain issues, but those issues have themselves been extensively discussed by the House over the past couple of years in a variety of different contexts. Therefore it has been possible for people to become conscious of some of the implications of the issues that he raises. However, it is undoubtedly the case—

Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: With great respect to both hon. Gentlemen, I do not think that our constituents who send us here expect us to spend our time discussing the minutiae of how we debate the Bill. I say that with great respect to the hon. Gentlemen, who are both long-serving Members of Parliament, and bearing in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Stone has voted for a guillotine on a previous occasion.

Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I shall not give way. I am simply saying to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I have been a Member of Parliament for as long as many and it has never been my practice to debate sittings motions and take up time, unless it was absolutely necessary. Hon. Members have raised important issues relating to whether matters should be handled in this way, but that question has been dealt with and I do not propose to deal with it at greater length.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but I say to him and to the House that I do not intend to give way again.

Mr. Corbyn: The leader of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), made an important point relating to clauses 5, 6 and 7 and their extra-territorial implications. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a need for serious discussion and consultation with a large number of people before the House takes such a major legislative step, which, in effect, will give power in British law to other countries when we do not have any such control over other countries' laws?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that my hon. Friend has read the Bill and seen that the Government have taken steps to write safeguards into it. He will also be aware that the matter has been extensively discussed over a very long period before being put forward in legislation. I say both


to my hon. Friend and to the leader of Plaid Cymru that one of the reasons for the precise nature of the Government's motion was to ensure that the House had the opportunity specifically to consider those clauses of the Bill and not to allow that time to be swallowed up by the debate on the earlier part of the Bill. The Government have tried to recognise the sensitivities that hon. Members have expressed and to deal with them.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who feels passionately and strongly about the liberties secured in the House, spoke about the liberties secured for him here. The principal reason why the Government are introducing the Bill is that securing our liberties and securing peace within the United Kingdom are of great importance to us all. That is why those on the Opposition Front Bench supported the manner in which the Government are proceeding. The matters before us are ones that, from time to time, have to be considered with a little more dispatch than is our wont. The hon. Gentleman also said that he hoped that we would march step in step with the Irish Parliament and Government; we are seeking to do so today.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 87.

Division No. 357]
[4.54 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cann, Jamie


Alexander, Douglas
Caplin, Ivor


Allen, Graham
Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael



Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Chaytor, David


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Chisholm, Malcolm


Atherton, Ms Candy
Chope, Christopher


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clappison, James


Banks, Tony
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Begg, Miss Anne
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey


Bercow, John
Coaker, Vernon


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry


Berry, Roger
Coleman, Iain


Betts, Clive
Collins, Tim


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Colman, Tony


Blizzard, Bob
Connarty, Michael


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cooper, Yvette


Boateng, Paul
Corbett, Robin


Borrow, David
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Cran, James


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cranston, Ross


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Crausby, David


Bradshaw, Ben
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Brazier, Julian
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon(Dunfermline E)
Cummings, John



Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John(Copeland)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)



Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Browne, Desmond
Curry, Rt Hon David


Buck, Ms Karen
Darvill, Keith


Burden, Richard
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Burns, Simon
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dean, Mrs Janet





Denham, John
Jamieson, David


Dobbin, Jim
Jenkins, Brian


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey 


Donohoe, Brian H



Doran, Frank
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Duncan, Alan
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Edwards, Huw
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keeble, Ms Sally


Ennis, Jeff
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Etherington, Bill
Kemp, Fraser


Evans, Nigel
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fallon, Michael
Key, Robert


Fisher, Mark
Kidney, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fitzsimons, Lorna
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Flint, Caroline
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Follett, Barbara
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lansley, Andrew


Foulkes, George
Laxton, Bob


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Leslie, Christopher


Fox, Dr Liam
Letwin, Oliver


Fraser, Christopher
Levitt, Tom


Fyfe, Maria
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gale, Roger
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Gapes, Mike
Linton, Martin


Gardiner, Barry
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Love, Andrew


Gibb, Nick
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gibson, Dr Ian
McAvoy, Thomas


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
McCabe, Steve


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Godman, Dr Norman A
McDonagh, Siobhain


Goggins, Paul
McIsaac, Shona


Golding, Mrs Llin
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McNulty, Tony


Green, Damian
MacShane, Denis


Greenway, John
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallaber, Judy


Grogan, John
Mandelson, Peter


Hague, Rt Hon William
Maples, John


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Martlew, Eric


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Hanson, David
Maxton, John


Hawkins, Nick
May, Mrs Theresa


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meale, Alan


Heald, Oliver
Merron, Gillian


Healey, John
Michael, Alun


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Miller, Andrew


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moffatt, Laura


Heppell, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moran, Ms Margaret


Home Robertson, John
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hood, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Moss, Malcolm


Hope, Phil
Mountford, Kali


Hopkins, Kelvin
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Horam, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Norris, Dan


Hoyle, Lindsay
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Hara, Eddie


Humble, Mrs Joan
Olner, Bill


Hurst, Alan
O'Neill, Martin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Organ, Mrs Diana


Illsley, Eric
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Ingram, Adam
Page, Richard


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Palmer, Dr Nick






Pearson, Ian
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pendry, Tom
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pickles, Eric
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pike, Peter L
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pollard, Kerry
Streeter, Gary


Pond, Chris
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prior, David
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Temple—Morris, Peter


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rogers, Allan
Tipping, Paddy


Rooker, Jeff
Touhig, Don


Rooney, Terry
Trend, Michael


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Trickett, Jon


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Roy, Frank
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruane, Chris
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Waterson, Nigel


Salter, Martin
Watts, David



White, Brian


Savidge, Malcolm
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sawford, Phil
Wicks, Malcolm


Sedgemore, Brian
Willetts, David


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Winnick, David


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Snape, Peter
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Soames, Nicholas
Wyatt, Derek


Soley, Clive
Yeo, Tim


Spellar, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spring, Richard



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mr. David Clelland and


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Greg Pope.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Baker, Norman
Gorrie, Donald


Baldry, Tony
Grant, Bernie


Beggs, Roy
Gray, James


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Grieve, Dominic


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Hayes, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Blunt, Crispin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hunter, Andrew


Brady, Graham
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Breed, Colin
Keetch, Paul


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Burnett, John
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Burstow, Paul
Livsey, Richard


Cable, Dr Vincent
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Canavan, Dennis
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cash, William
Loughton, Tim


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
McAllion, John


Clwyd, Ann
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Corbyn, Jeremy
McDonnell, John


Dalyell, Tam
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McNamara, Kevin


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maginnis, Ken


Faber, David
Malins, Humfrey


Fabricant, Michael
Marshall-Andrews, Robert





Mates, Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Mullin, Chris
Swayne, Desmond


Öpik, Lembit
Swinney, John


Paisley, Rev Ian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paterson, Owen
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Randall, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Rendel, David
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Walter, Robert



Webb, Steve


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Ruffley, David
Willis, Phil


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wise, Audrey


St Aubyn, Nick



Salmond, Alex
Tellers for the Noes:


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Richard Shepherd.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That—

1.(1) Proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill shall be taken and concluded at today's sitting; and for this purpose—

(a) as soon as the proceedings on this Motion are concluded, the order for Second Reading of the Bill shall be read;
(b) notices of amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time;
(c) when the Bill is read a second time it shall stand committed to a Committee of the whole House, and the House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill;
(d) proceedings in Committee on clauses 1 to 4 shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, three hours after the conclusion of proceedings on Second Reading;
(e) remaining proceedings on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, six hours after the conclusion of proceedings on Second Reading;
(f) at the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting the Speaker shall adjourn the House without putting any Question.

(2) For the purpose of concluding proceedings in accordance with sub-paragraphs 1(d) and (e), the Chair shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(d) on successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions.

(5) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.

2. At the sitting tomorrow—

(a) any message received from the Lords relating to the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill shall be considered forthwith;


(b) proceedings on any message shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after commencement;
(c) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she has notified the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses; and
(d) the Speaker shall then adjourn the House without putting any Question.

3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at the sittings today and tomorrow.

Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Copies of the amendment have been available in the Vote Office for some time and are still there for hon. Members who have not yet seen the amendment.

Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in his statement that we face a new situation in Northern Ireland. The peace process is moving forward with the overwhelming support of both communities in the north and of the people of the Republic, but small splinter groups have shown themselves ready to resort to appalling and indiscriminate destruction, as they did in Omagh, in a desperate effort to throw that process off course. We cannot and we must not let such groups succeed.
The devastating bombings of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and, more recently, of the restaurant in Cape Town are further reminders, if any were needed, of the wider threat. We have to send the clearest message to international terrorist groups that we in the United Kingdom will not allow this country to be used as a base for plotting and supporting terrorist operations abroad. Britain already has wide-ranging powers to combat terrorism, but it is essential that they are kept under constant review and that we remain ready to move quickly to remedy practical deficiencies that come to light.
In opposition, we actively supported the previous Government in their rapid steps in April 1996 to extend police powers to stop and search in response to the Provisional IRA's resumed bombing campaign. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House spelled out a few moments ago, at that time the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), made a statement of his intention on 1 April and presented a draft Bill. With our co-operation, a guillotine motion was introduced and the debate, which finished at 1.21 am, dealt with all stages of that Bill.
Although I entirely accept that in a perfect world it is unsatisfactory to have to deal with legislation quickly and that we should never go down that road unless we have to, it is a matter of record that a Labour Government did exactly that, when in November 1974, they presented the original prevention of terrorism legislation. The Conservatives supported them at that time and, with Labour support, the previous Government introduced a more modest measure in April 1996.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I understand the Home Secretary's argument about terrorism. Does he recognise that the conspiracy part of the Bill is not confined to terrorism? For example, it could apply to an


environmental pressure group that was organising a peaceful protest in Germany against the dispatch of some toxic material to Britain. Therefore, the urgency that he seeks to apply, even if it were applied to terrorism outside Northern Ireland, cannot be applied to the non-terrorist implications of the Bill.

Mr. Straw: I shall come to that. The right hon. Gentleman has had much more notice of this matter than usual because of co-operation, which may turn out to be one way. The Liberal Democrats can tear up with gay abandon the agreements to which they sign up. We live and learn. The right hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong. It is impossible to conceive of a circumstance in which what he describes as a plan to disrupt a peaceful protest in Germany would be an offence here. The right hon. Gentleman spoke on the 1996 legislation and is well enough versed in these matters to know that the Bill contains the fundamental principle of dual criminality. We never lay a charge of conspiracy to commit an offence abroad if that offence is also an offence here.
If it were an offence here to do what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) describes, people could be charged with it because we have signed Council of Europe conventions that allow prosecutions for a wide range of offences where there is evidence of conspiracy here to commit those offences in other countries. That applies not just to EU countries, but to other Council of Europe countries, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows include some in eastern Europe. I shall explain in more detail when I come to the relevant part of the Bill why the change is important. We have lost 28 lives in the north of Ireland—but I do not seek to make this a competition, because any person's death from terrorism diminishes us. However, 10 times more lives were lost in outrages in Dar es Salaam and Kenya, and we would have been blind and deaf if we had not recognised the need to act in respect of those as well as in respect of terrorism in the north of Ireland.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the Home Secretary accept that clauses 5 and 7 are substantially lifted from my private Member's Bill of some 18 months ago which his party failed to support in the Division Lobby? What is the difference between the situation 18 months ago and that of today? Sadly, many people were killed in terrorist outrages more than 18 months ago and many have been killed in such outrages since.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you advise the Home Secretary to take such interventions when he comes to clause 5? If that does not happen, the House will be distracted and delayed in dealing with the Bill.

Madam Speaker: That is a sensible suggestion, but it is hardly a point of order. However, I am sure that the Home Secretary and the House have noted it.

Mr. Straw: Up to a point, I accept my hon. Friend's intervention, but he will know from his years in the House that I seek to accept interventions because that is vital to the process of debate, especially when the House is asked at short notice to deal with such a Bill.
We ensured that the Bill that was presented by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) received an unopposed Second Reading. Although we moved

amendments in Committee, as I recall we did not vote against the Bill at any stage. We had reservations about its width in the context of incitement, which is not included in clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill that we are debating. As a safeguard to deal with the legitimate anxieties about how such a power might be misused, any prosecution will be subject to the explicit and prior approval of the Attorney-General. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 take account of that.
The private Member's Bill that was presented by the hon. Member for Eastbourne did not succeed because "I spy strangers" was called and the Conservative Whips were so incompetent that they could not get 40 Conservative Members to secure a quorum. I had not intended to mention that embarrassment in terms of the previous Administration's mismanagement. I hope that there is all-party support for the present measure. If the hon. Gentleman's Bill had been important, the previous Government would have made it a Government measure.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his preparedness to take interventions. I refer him to the principle of clauses 5, 6 and 7. Does he accept that there is a serious danger of incorporating in British law what pertains in countries over which we have no influence or control whatever? People in such countries might decide that some of their political opponents in exile are dangerous and should be committed to prison. The title of clause 5 does not specify the offences. It merely states:
Conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom".
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that part of the Bill is extremely dangerous and has far-reaching implications for the principles of political asylum anywhere for people who legitimately oppose brutal and barbarous regimes in other parts of the world?

Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. Others have expressed it, and I hope that not only on Second Reading but in Committee my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be able to allay those fears. They can be allayed by reference not only to what is in the Bill but by the important fact that the Attorney-General will have the duty personally to examine every potential prosecution and, if required, he will be able to take the public interest into account. That includes some of the considerations that my hon. Friend raises.
We need not look in the crystal ball; we can look at the book. As I explained, any offences committed in countries that are members of the Council of Europe can be the subject here of a charge of conspiracy to commit those offences abroad. In addition, the offences of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit sexual offences anywhere in the world can already be put on an indictment.

Mr. Beith: So what is the urgency?

Mr. Straw: The urgency is to ensure that, in appropriate circumstances, we can also charge people with terrorist and other serious offences. There is one other explanation. At the moment, we can charge in respect of terrorist offences not only in countries that are members of the Council of Europe but in the United States and India. Therefore, if the outrages committed by middle


east terrorists had taken place not against the American embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi but against the American embassy in Delhi, and there was evidence here of a conspiracy to commit that outrage, we could have brought that charge. In all the 19 years that I have been in the House I have never once heard a representation against that power being used.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General would exercise the greatest care in judging whether an indictment should lie, and judge and jury would also deal carefully with the matter. We are dealing here with important anomalies which mean that our weaponry against those who conspire to commit terrorist offences abroad is defective. I have long believed that we should remedy those defects and, in the light of the nearly 300 people who lost their lives in those outrages in east Africa, now is the time to take action.
We shall return to the question of asylum, but the law and the practice here are categorical. Even where, from time to time, people in Britain are convicted of terrorist offences that relate to international, not Irish, terrorism, it is common practice where the offence is serious for a deportation order to be issued against such individuals if they are not British citizens. But those people are not automatically deported. Despite their previous convictions, they have rights under the United Nations convention on refugees and rights under article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which we are strengthening by its incorporation. They cannot be sent back to the country from which they came if they will then be subject again to degrading punishment.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: No prosecution can be taken forward under clause 5 without the agreement of the Attorney-General. My right hon. Friend mentioned the public interest consideration that the Attorney-General of the day would apply. Would I be right in surmising that the Attorney-General may consider it important not to alienate a major trading partner and that, because of that, no action should be taken, despite there being, on the face of it, good reason for that?

Mr. Straw: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General furrows his brow with some measure of disbelief at the supposition behind the question. Such a consideration would be entirely outwith the quasi-judicial way in which, in my time in the House, the present Attorney-General and—I say with great respect—his predecessors have operated.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to three hon. Friends; then I must proceed with the debate. Of course, I shall also give way later.

Mr. Tony Benn: To be specific, Osama bin Laden was funded by the Central Intelligence Agency to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. If anyone had supported him then, would he have been caught by what the Bill proposes? Many of us, including my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I, supported Mandela when he was imprisoned for terrorism to which he confessed at the Rivonia trial. If people are now engaged

in trying to topple Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, or North Korea, would they be caught by the Bill? Would the Bill apply to Sandline and to other mercenaries who provide the mechanism for this? Would it apply to the security services? My right hon. Friend must be absolutely specific. If we pass this legislation, prosecutions will arbitrarily be left to the Attorney-General. Attorneys-General can be flexible in their interpretation of the law if it is inconvenient to the Government in which they serve. That is why they remain Attorneys-General. We must not pretend that this is simply a matter of the law, the law, the law. It is a matter of governmental discretion. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend would answer those questions.

Mr. Straw: I shall do my best but, if I fail in my right hon. Friend's eyes, as I suppose I might, I hope that he will return to the matter in Committee.
The Attorney-General's decision is simply to proceed to prosecute. He is not judge and jury. Aside from the wider issues of the public interest, the Attorney-General must, above all, take into account whether he believes that there is a case to go before the courts and then before a jury. If the case is weak, it is highly likely that the judge will throw it out before it gets to the jury or, if he allows the case to go to the jury, that the jury will throw it out. I have great confidence in the ability of British jurors to determine guilt or innocence in serious cases of this kind. I am clear in my belief that they would do so.
We are dealing here not with a clean sheet but with a highly anomalous situation where already conspiracy to commit murder anywhere in the world is an offence here, as is conspiracy to commit various sexual offences and, as it happens, some computer crimes. A conspiracy to commit terrorist offences in the United States and India is already an offence here and a conspiracy to commit any offence of any kind in any country that is a member of the Council of Europe is already an offence.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: My right hon. Friend refers to the Attorney-General being a safeguard, but he is not immortal and we must worry about any future incumbent's attitudes. It is appalling to think that a person's liberty could depend on the fairness, justice and probity of one individual. Surely the Bill needs to give people the clear safeguard that, if they do something against despotic regimes abroad that is not illegal here and which we as democrats would support, they need not fear prosecution here.

Mr. Straw: Although Attorneys-General are not immortal, as it happens—this is an ad hominem point—my right hon. and learned Friend is almost immortal. Next year, he celebrates 40 years in this place. I was in his constituency yesterday in part to celebrate that great and looming day which will take place in October.
My hon. Friend's other point was also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I do not believe for a second that, under the Bill as drafted, any idea of a charge against people who supported the African National Congress, as I did, throughout the period of apartheid, would have remotely got on its feet. We are not talking about that; we are talking about conspiracy to commit serious crime. Much of what the ANC was doing here was a crime in the vile Republic of South Africa, as it then was, but it was not a


crime here. No charge can be made unless it is a crime not only in the country concerned but here. That is the essence of the dual criminality rule.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and then from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed).

Mr. David Winnick: Like most people in the country, I suppose, I do not believe that Britain should be some kind of haven for those committing terrorist offences abroad. It is inconceivable that we should give asylum to those who do that. However, why do we not insert the word "terrorist" in the appropriate place in the phrase "conspiracy to commit offences"? I understand that other serious offences that my right hon. Friend mentioned, such as sexual offences, would be covered by other laws, but in order to tighten the legislation and to safeguard civil liberties, will he consider adding the word "terrorist" at the appropriate place?

Mr. Straw: We shall return to the point in Committee. The Bill tabled as a private Member's Bill under the previous Administration covered all potential offences. We supported it at that time and did not argue about the fact that it covered a wide range of offences. I know that the anxieties of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members relate principally to terrorist offences. I do not believe, therefore, that, if we excluded other offences, those anxieties would be allayed.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall make some progress before I take another batch of interventions. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire will be the first.
I should make it clear that, in moving swiftly to close specific loopholes, as we propose to do today, we are complementing the longer-term work already in hand comprehensively to review the prevention of terrorism legislation as a whole. My predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, began that process in 1995 when he appointed the distinguished Law Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to conduct a thorough review of anti-terrorist measures. Lord Lloyd published his report in October 1996. I made an interim report about the future of anti-terrorist legislation to the House on 30 October last year.
I can now tell the House that work on preparation of the promised consultation paper is well advanced. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) asked why we had not met the original timetable for the publication of the paper. The answer is that we kept hoping to do so, but circumstances, particularly in the island of Ireland, kept changing. Although I understand the frustration that that has caused, which has also been caused to me and to officials in the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office because we had to keep changing the draft, it has turned out to be sensible that we did not publish that document earlier. We will publish it in the autumn.
Consideration of that document and of the legislation that should follow will provide the opportunity to deal with some of the more wide-ranging proposals for change

that have been made in the past few days, including those mentioned earlier by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), which will no doubt be raised by hon. Members today. It will also be an opportunity to reflect on the practical impact of the changes to which I hope the House will agree today.
The purpose of the Bill is therefore limited. It is tightly focused and it is undoubtedly tough, but it is proportionate. I shall deal first with the provisions that concern Northern Ireland and terrorism related to it.

Mr. Sayeed: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. We can all agree that it is important to introduce good-quality legislation to deal with international terrorism, particularly as international terrorism is changing from state-sponsored terrorism to a rather apolitical form of terrorism. Although it is important, why is it so urgent to table legislation that will not receive proper consideration? Everyone may agree on the principles, but the words of the Bill were not seen until 6.10 yesterday evening. It is incumbent on the Home Secretary to explain why a measure dealing with international terrorism is so urgent that Parliament must be recalled. Why could it not wait six or seven weeks?

Mr. Straw: Such a Bill would not wait six or seven weeks. If it were taken in normal time, it would have to wait until the next Session. These are always matters of fine judgment. Had the bombings of the American embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi not taken place, and had there not been the loss of almost 300 lives and the injury of many hundreds more, we would not have introduced the measure at this time, just as if there had not been the loss of 28 lives in Omagh, the House would not have been recalled to consider the legislation. It is a matter of proportion.
I spent 18 years on the Opposition side of the House where the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire now sits, trying to scrutinise Government legislation as best I could. Of course it is far better to have time to scrutinise legislation and to do so carefully. Sometimes that is not possible. I have done my best, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done, to explain the circumstances where that judgment must be made. It was made in 1974 by the previous Labour Government and again, among other times, in April 1996.
In the space of the same month, we have witnessed the single worst terrorist outrage in the north of Ireland throughout the entire 30 years of troubles there, and one of the most serious terrorist outrages on the international scene that the world has ever witnessed. Taking those facts together, it was not unreasonable for Parliament to be recalled or for the Bill to come before the House. I accept that there is a greater possibility that some of the wording is not entirely accurate. We will listen carefully to what is said today.
The parts of the Bill that have not been before the House ever before—clauses 1 to 4—will be subject to annual review, as well as to the comprehensive review that I outlined. The first review will take place in just six months, in March. With respect to clauses 5, 6 and 7, the House need have less anxiety. The words in those clauses have been in the public domain for well over two years


and have been the subject of a great deal of public discussion, so clauses 5, 6 and 7 are not formulations suddenly being brought before the House.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I do not want to confuse my right hon. Friend, but may I bring him back to clause 1? Proposed section 2A (3) states that the evidence of a police superintendent shall be admissible as evidence, but prohibits committal for trial in England and Wales or conviction on that basis alone. Does the same hold for Scotland, or does the Scots legal system of corroboration provide such protection? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the police forces of England and Wales and Scotland are working closely with the RUC and the Garda Siochana in their attempts to bring terrorists to justice?

Mr. Straw: Yes, that is provided for. It is provided for separately on page 2 in proposed section 2A (10). We can return to the matter in Committee.

Mr. Bernie Grant: rose—

Mr. Straw: If I may, I must make some progress.

Mr. William Cash: rose—

Mr. Straw: I am anxious to give way, but it is important that I continue my speech.
The Good Friday agreement, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred, was comprehensive. It covered constitutional issues, as well as a wide range of confidence-building measures affecting all parts of the community. Yesterday's events, including the important and significant statement from Sinn Fein, are a further indication of how the momentum for political progress has been maintained. That has been shown by the positive reaction from everyone engaged in the process.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall make some progress and then do my best to give way.
Political co-operation is the only future for Northern Ireland. In a referendum on 22 May, the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic overwhelmingly supported the agreement that the Real IRA and other splinter groups are now trying to undermine. The Government have a duty—an imperative—to ensure that those bent on such destruction do not succeed. The measures brought forward today in the Bill are targeted against groups that are not observing a full and unequivocal ceasefire.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall make a little more progress. I shall give way to three hon. Members, of whom she will be one.
As the House knows, the Dail is also meeting today to address anti-terrorism legislation. The recall today of the two Parliaments illustrates graphically that cross-border co-operation, to which the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred, has never been better. That is equally true operationally. I saw and heard that only last Friday when I visited Belfast and spoke to the Chief Constable of the RUC, Ronnie Flanagan, and the Commissioner of the Garda, Pat Byrne, who were there for a routine meeting. I am in constant contact with my opposite number in the Republic of Ireland, John O'Donoghue, the Minister of Justice there. I last spoke to him yesterday evening about the changes that the Irish Government were tabling today in the Dail.
The clear, unequivocal message is that co-operation at all levels between north and south is vital in the fight against terrorism. This Bill, together with the legislation that is being introduced in the Republic will help that process.
We believe that it is essential to act without delay. We could have acted, in part, by secondary legislation, but we took the view that such matters ought to be dealt with openly and confidently by Parliament.
The Bill targets members of specified proscribed organisations, as defined by the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 or designated in an order made by a Secretary of State. At present there are four such organizations—the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Loyalist Volunteer Force. Membership of proscribed organisations generally has been illegal for many years, and the police have used the power with some success. Since 1990, there have been 195 convictions in Northern Ireland for membership. However, it has proved difficult in the past to prosecute for membership alone. The Bill addresses that problem in three ways.
First, the Bill allows statements by a senior police officer of the rank of superintendent or above concerning membership of a specified proscribed organisation to be admissible as evidence in court. That will not on its own be sufficient to secure conviction, although it will obviously be an important element in any prosecution.
Secondly, the Bill allows a court to draw inferences from the failure by a suspect to answer relevant questions in respect of that membership offence. Thirdly, it amends—

Mr. Chris Mullin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: I have promised to give way to three of my other colleagues, but as my hon. Friend is standing, I will give way to him.

Mr. Mullin: Would we not be able to take those inferences more seriously if the interviews were audio-recorded? What possible objection can there be to making audio recording a condition of the way in which the Bill is to be implemented? We have been promising for months now—in fact, for years—to start recording interviews with terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland. Is not today the right day to start?

Mr. Straw: What my hon. Friend describes already happens within Great Britain. There is no objection in


principle—far from it. The House has actively supported the principle for Northern Ireland, and passed such provisions into law. The only issue that remains is when it is practical to bring such provisions into operation. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that they will come into operation as soon as the Bill does, but I can promise—the RUC accepts this—that, given the decision that the House has already made and passed into law, those changes must come into force as quickly as possible. We can come back to that in Committee.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that people want to see those responsible for the atrocity at Omagh convicted of that appalling offence. I have not had time to examine the Bill thoroughly, so will he explain in what way the provisions in the legislation that we are debating today will assist in the process of convicting those responsible for the bombing, as opposed to convicting people for the lesser offence of membership of a proscribed organisation?

Mr. Straw: The third point that I was coming on to mention is that the Bill also amends the powers of arrest in the prevention of terrorism Act so that the powers in Northern Ireland are brought into line with those that already apply in Great Britain. It was anomalous—

Mr. Cash: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I should be grateful if the House would let me answer one intervention before I proceed to another. I have made it clear that, within the confines of getting through my speech, I will take as many interventions as possible.
It is anomalous that, in Great Britain, membership of a proscribed organisation is already an arrestable offence, but in Northern Ireland it is not. The amendment will mean that those suspected of the offence of membership of a proscribed organisation in Northern Ireland can be arrested on the same basis as in Great Britain.
As to the wider implications of my hon. Friend's question, the Bill gives the police and the prosecution additional powers by which they can bring a prosecution before the courts and, where the evidence is regarded as sound, secure a conviction. That is its purpose.

Mr. Robathan: The Home Secretary is giving way a great deal, and I am grateful.
Gerry Adams said yesterday, in anticipation of President Clinton's visit, that violence was finished. Does the Home Secretary recall the message sent by Martin McGuinness representing the IRA leadership in February 1993, in which he said, "The conflict is over," as quoted by the then Secretary of State in Hansard on 29 November 1993? My point is, what credence does the Home Secretary give to statements from Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness on this matter?

Mr. Straw: It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I take a similar view to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this. I welcome the statement made by Sinn Fein as a significant step forward. To paraphrase my right hon. Friend, we have to take

account of history, but we cannot get trapped in it. The process begun by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), then Prime Minister, and continued by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has started a momentum to get people away from terrorism, including the majority of those who have been involved in terrorism, towards a peaceful process to secure the future in Northern Ireland.
Of course we are not dewy-eyed about that process; of course it is possible that things may go wrong; but the parties to the agreement have signed up to it. So far, they have shown rather greater determination to stick to their signature than one party in this House. The agreement was signed in April, and the parties are still sticking to it. One party in the House managed to change its mind in 24 hours, but we will not go into too much private grief on that. If, God forbid, the agreement runs into difficulties, there are various provisions within it for dealing with that.
I will give way one last time and then I must continue.

Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman may have noticed that I have tried to make a point with respect to the long title of the Bill on a number of occasions with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Speaker. I now have an opportunity to put it to the Home Secretary and I hope that he will be good enough to listen just for one second.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely important to ensure that members of the Real IRA or Continuity IRA who are currently in prison, about whose membership of proscribed organisations people were not sure, should not be released? Does he agree that, if notice were given of the fact that they were members of such an organisation based on the opinion of a police officer under the provisions of this Bill, it would still not be possible for the commissioners under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which we passed on 28 July, to prevent that early release?
If there is a problem here—I put it in all fairness to the Home Secretary that I think there is—I am told by the Clerks of the House that it will be necessary to change the long title of the Bill. If that is the case, will the Home Secretary be good enough to give us an assurance that he will look into it and adjust the long title, so that the Government's objectives in the Bill can be achieved properly? Otherwise, dangerous people will be let loose whom the Government would not want to be let loose under any other circumstances.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point. I will think about it, take advice and come back to it in Committee.

Mr. Mullin: I am sorry to be a nuisance—

Mr. Straw: I realised as the words were coming out of my mouth their implication in respect of my other hon. Friends. It goes without saying that every other intervention that has been made has been serious; it is just that sometimes the interventions made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) are not serious.

Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for being very generous in giving way. Can we clear up the


point about the audio recording not being practical? The report of the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres dated March 1998 says:
The Centre at Strand Road, Londonderry … already has audio-recording facilities for interviews with non-terrorist prisoners … We understand that the installations at the Centres have the means of being readily adaptable to accommodate audio-recording, as and when that is authorised.
So why does not my right hon. Friend just authorise it?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend will no doubt wish to pursue the point in Committee, but there is no argument about the need for audio recordings in terrorist cases. It has been the subject of great concern on this side of the House, and, indeed, on the other, for many years. The House has agreed it, and it has passed into law; it is simply a question of implementing it as quickly as possible. At this moment, I am unable to give my hon. Friend the precise undertaking he seeks about implementing it exactly when the Bill passes into law, but I give him the undertaking that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram)—and I are determined that it should come into force as quickly as possible.

Mr. Robert McCartney: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way later, but I must now get on with my speech.
The Bill also gives the courts new powers to order the forfeiture of property following conviction of membership of or support for a proscribed organisation. The court will be able to order the forfeiture of any form of property if it is satisfied that it has been used in connection with the activities of a group such as the Real IRA, or believes that it may be so used. The penalties already available to the courts in these cases are severe—up to 10 years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine—but I believe that the new provision offers a valuable reinforcement. It emphasises the gravity of the offence, and pulls away the practical props that such groups need to support their work. There will be safeguards, and the forfeiture will be entirely at the discretion of the courts.
It may be of interest to the House to know that, partly because the Irish Parliament already has much more extensive powers in respect of confiscation, and partly as an indication of the seriousness with which it takes this matter, clause 17 of the Bill before the Dail today contains a provision that amends the existing law governing the confiscation of property. If property—including real property such as a farm—is used in the course of a terrorist act, that property must be confiscated. The only discretion available to the court is that it can decide not to confiscate a property if it is of the opinion that a serious injustice might arise. The burden of proof is turned. Once it has been proved that the property has been used in a crime, only in a very few cases will the whole farm not be confiscated. We are not proposing that. We are proposing that the discretion should remain with the courts.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I must make progress.
The courts will hear anyone else who has an interest in the property before making the necessary order, but they will have a firm basis for decisive action when that is in the interests of justice.
The new provisions on evidence, inferences and forfeiture extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. It happens that prosecution for membership offences has been much less common in Great Britain, but it is important that we should act consistently.
The judicial process remains paramount throughout the changes. No prosecution in Northern Ireland or in England and Wales will be conducted without the personal involvement and approval of the relevant Director of Public Prosecutions. It will continue to be a matter solely for the courts to decide whether a defendant is guilty or not on the weight and quality of the evidence presented. The present criminal burden and standard of proof for conviction will remain.
I have already referred to the requirement for the police officer's opinion to be supported by other evidence in order to found a conviction. That also applies to inferences from any failure to mention material facts. Our commitment to the rule of law is one of the crucial differences between the principles of democracy and the evil dogma of the terrorists.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Straw: I will give way in a few moments. It is just possible that I might be about to answer the point that my hon. Friend wants to make.
Earlier this Session, both Houses gave overwhelming support to the Human Rights Bill. It is not yet law, but, as the House would expect, we have gone to considerable lengths to ensure that this Bill is consistent with our commitment to human rights and to the particular requirements of the convention. The additional inference from failure to mention material facts in answer to questions, which builds on the existing power to infer from silence, takes full account of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Murray. In that case, the court found that inferences should not be drawn from silence prior to access to a solicitor. We have specifically covered that point in the Bill.
A further important safeguard in relation to the whole of the first part of the Bill is that all the new provisions will, as I said, be subject to annual renewal. As it happens, the first occasion that the House will have to debate renewal will be in the debate on the prevention of terrorism Act next March, just six months away.
Before I move on to the second part of the Bill, let me refer specifically to three issues that have been discussed—

Mr. Tom King: rose

Mr. Straw: If I may just make this point, I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)— [Interruption.]—oh, and perhaps to someone behind me as well. I will not quote what Iain Macleod once said about speaking from the Front Bench.
Before I move on to the second part of the Bill, I shall refer specifically to some issues that have been discussed in the aftermath of Omagh but we have not taken forward at this stage. The first relates to evidence obtained from interception, or telephone tapping.
At present, under section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, there is an absolute ban on the use of intercept evidence in any court for any purpose. Some of the intelligence available, which leads the police to a strongly held belief that someone is a member of a designated organisation, may have come, or may come, from the product of interception. It has therefore been suggested that the intercept product might be admitted specifically to support charges of membership of a proscribed organisation, or in terrorist cases more generally.
Of course I understand the view that any material that points to involvement in terrorism should be put before the courts, but there are strong contrary arguments, which include the risk of damage to operational effectiveness from wider knowledge of interception capabilities. There are also difficulties in limiting any change to specific offences.
I hope that the House will accept that it is neither desirable nor, I suggest, practical to depart from the general rule laid down by Parliament in 1985 for the narrow purposes of this Bill. However, I acknowledge the case for looking again at the regime for interception.
Aside from any other considerations, profound changes in the technology of electronic communication have taken place in the past decade, and they, together with the decisions of the European Court in Strasbourg, have made new consideration of the regime imperative. In his report, Lord Lloyd made recommendations for a limited change in this respect, and those recommendations must be considered. I can therefore announce to the House today that, earlier in the summer, I had already put in hand a comprehensive review of the interception regime, and a consultation document will be published in due course.
The second suggestion was for much wider powers to confiscate the assets of terrorists who are convicted of offences of membership of a proscribed organisation. I announced last October that I was determined to ensure far more effective arrangements, so that criminals generally could not profit from their crimes, or use wealth that had been obtained unlawfully. Work is in hand on that, and I will be making announcements later in the year. As I have already said, the Republic of Ireland is already very much further ahead of us in this respect with its Criminal Assets Bureau, and we shall we studying its arrangements with interest.
I shall now give way to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater and some others.

Mr. Tom King: The Home Secretary drew attention to the significance of clause 4 and the power of forfeiture. He mentioned farms specifically. He will know the role that many have played as storage areas for weaponry and munitions over the years and of their use for the preparation of home-made bombs and the provision of fertiliser. Does he consider that it is sufficiently known that there is a power for the whole farm to be forfeited from someone who is found be assisting in such activities? Has consideration been given perhaps to announcing a short amnesty for any farmers who declare

the existence of any stores of munitions and armaments or the location of equipment for the preparation of home-made explosives? It could be made clear that, if the farmers failed to take advantage of such an amnesty, their whole farm could be forfeited.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the extent of the powers relating to some other offences. As to his second point, so far as I am aware no consideration has been given to the amnesty suggestion, but I and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, believe that it is an interesting and original suggestion. I shall ensure that it receives proper consideration as part of the overall environment for decommissioning.

Mr. Bermingham: Proposed section 2A (4) contains a provision whereby, in order to comply with the judgment in the case of Murray, the prisoner has to be advised legally. Is it not a fact that, in Northern Ireland, the solicitor then withdraws? Would it not be sensible to allow the solicitor to remain, as he does in England? We should then have not only the benefit of the tape recording of the interview and of the presence of the solicitor, which would prevent any conflict, but, ultimately, an enormous saving of court time, as we have found in England, Wales and Scotland, where interviews are conducted in the presence of a solicitor, tape-recorded and presented without argument.

Mr. Straw: I have dealt with tape recordings, but I accept the gravamen of what my hon. Friend says. It is certainly true that the present position is slightly anomalous, because, in Great Britain, the solicitor, having been permitted access to his client, or vice versa, remains for the interview, which does not necessarily happen in Northern Ireland. There are reasons why the separate practice has grown up. I believe that the RUC will accept in the particular circumstances of this measure that the probative value of inferences to be drawn from a failure properly to answer a question may be enhanced if a solicitor is present. We shall pursue that point with the RUC and the prosecution authorities in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Öpik: I am also encouraged by the Home Secretary's comments on human rights issues. The civil liberties of a group of people could still suffer—those people who are coerced into assisting with terrorist acts. It is difficult to prove coercion and so forth, but is the right hon. Gentleman willing seriously to consider amendments that might help to find a way forward so that the civil liberties of individuals who have been coerced to help will not be curtailed in a way that might contravene natural justice?

Mr. Straw: Of course we will consider amendments when they are tabled, and treat them on their merits. Obviously, coercion is a defence. The hon. Gentleman may say that he is concerned about that defence being given in open court. The RUC has had long experience of dealing with people who have suffered from being coerced, and of treating their defences in the strictest confidence.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am pleased to see the Home Secretary giving way so often. Earlier,


he spoke about confidence, and I wonder how confident he is that this legislation will result in convictions. He may be surprised to learn that, when his noble Friend Lord Mason was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, similar legislation was suggested, and it was proposed that an RUC officer could give such evidence.
I advised Lord Mason that the Government should not go down that road, first, because the RUC gets enough flak at times—internationally—when it does an excellent job, and, secondly, because, in the Dail the legislation was then being changed because Daithe O'Connell changed the whole pattern at the time. Thereafter, IRA members denied that they were members of the organisation.
How confident is the Secretary of State that this legislation will lead to safe convictions, particularly bearing in mind the fact that, when a man called Dougan was murdered just outside Belfast, people were brought to court, there were witnesses, but one withdrew at the last minute, so the DPP said that it could not proceed with the trial? There is a political dimension, and it might be worth while bearing that in mind.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman's reference to what happened in the late 1970s underlines the point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was making. Circumstances really have changed, and we now have effective cross-border co-operation. The Governments of both countries are now determined to drive against that terrorist splinter group, and we now have a much better consensus than we had in the past.
We could argue whether correct judgments were made in the past—sometimes they were, sometimes they were not. The hon. Gentleman asked about the likely success of the legislation. To answer that, the best I can do—it is an important best—is quote the opinion given by the Chief Constable of the RUC, Ronnie Flanagan, on Ulster Television last Thursday. He said that the new legislation would be "very important", but went on to say:
there are no quick fixes, there are no magic solutions",
and the
key to our success has to be full public co-operation",
which is absolutely true.
This measure is important. We think that it will assist the police—indeed, it is a power that they have wanted. However, I make no guesses about the number of people who will be prosecuted under it, or about the number who will be deterred by it. I hope that many more will be deterred by the threats of prosecution and forfeiture.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Obviously, I would have preferred to have time to discuss these matters in parliamentary Labour party committees and to get to the detail. I want some clarification. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are not invited to those meetings. First, under the Bill, if a senior officer is of the opinion that a person is a member of an organisation, or the person is identified as such, and the person then fails to answer questions about membership, or denies it, can he or she be convicted because of those two simple matters, or must the person be charged with some other offence?
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned in passing subsection (10) of the new section 2A contained in clause 1, which refers to Scotland, and

said that that could be dealt with in Committee. I understand that we must table amendments before the end of the debate on Second Reading if we wish them to be discussed in Committee, so I want him to clarify how that subsection will work. It clearly refers to any proceedings in which
the accused is charged with belonging to a specified organisation where the court draws an inference as mentioned in subsection (6) above"—
because the accused did not deny that he or she was a member—
any evidence that he belongs to the organisation shall be sufficient evidence of that matter.
Am I correct in interpreting that to mean that, if the person has been accused of belonging to an organisation or that is the opinion of an officer, any other evidence that is not corroborated—as it normally would be under Scots law—by a second officer would be sufficient to convict that person? Are we making such an immense change to Scots law on the Floor of the House today?

Mr. Straw: No, we are not. However, I must first correct my hon. Friend's intervention, as I think that, when he said that he would rather discuss this in a Labour party committee than in Parliament, he meant to say that he would rather have discussed it in such a committee as well as in Parliament.

Mr. Connarty: Before.

Mr. Straw: Yes. We will try to get that changed in the record as well. Perhaps I can give my hon. Friend a tip. If he wants to amend the Bill, all he has to do is table an amendment to delete subsection (10) of new section 2A in clause 1, and then we can discuss it. I have never owned up to any expertise in Scots law, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the Member for East Kilbride, who is also a Scot—

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): But not an expert.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend has some expertise in the matter, or has access to experts. The proposal is entirely consistent with what we are introducing for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland, but my hon. Friend will deal with it at greater length in Committee.

Mr. Connarty: rose—

Mr. Straw: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that answer as satisfactory. We will return to the matter, I promise.

Mr. Sayeed: The Home Secretary announced a review of the use of telephone tapping to produce evidence. Will he widen the scope of that review to allow the use of intelligence information in a way that will not compromise the asset that provides it? That could be important, particularly as regards international terrorism.

Mr. Straw: To some extent it is anomalous, but intelligence obtained by electronic surveillance other than telephone tapping or interception is already admissible in court—indeed, it is sometimes admitted in court. In 1996,


we discussed that at great length in our debates on police legislation. Of course, it is a matter of fine judgment on the part of the police whether they introduce such evidence, because, by using the contents, they are admitting the fact of the surveillance and intelligence, and there is a fine line.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: I have been speaking for an hour, and have been anxious to take interventions, but it is reasonable now for me to press on to a conclusion so that other hon. Members can speak.
On the conspiracy proposals, I dealt with the case for those—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that matter?

Mr. Straw: Perhaps my hon. Friend could let me finish my remarks. I dealt with the case for such proposals in some detail, and we will go into them in more detail in Committee.
This is not the Bill that I think some of my hon. Friends fear. It is similar to, although more narrowly defined than, the Bill brought forward two years ago, which we supported from the Opposition Front Bench. There were anxieties about whether, at that stage, the incitement provisions could have led to the problems that have been mentioned in connection with the African National Congress.
However, incitement is a much wider offence than conspiracy, and in this Bill there is no provision covering incitement. Such provision would, I accept, require detailed consideration in slow time before we could decide whether to include it.
I have already referred to the other two important safeguards—the Attorney-General's consent and the principle of dual criminality, whereby only conspiracy to commit offences abroad that are also offences here is covered.

Mr. Grant: My problem is a practical one—something that is happening today. In my constituency is an organisation called the Kurdistan information centre, which looks after about 800 Kurdish refugees on a daily basis. The police have been raiding that organisation because they believe that it has been involved in terrorism, although the organisers tell me that that is not the case. None the less, there are people there, the organisers say, who support the PKK, a terrorist organisation in Turkey, and collect money for it. Under the Bill, will that be an offence? I want a straightforward yes or no.

Mr. Straw: It is not possible to give a straightforward yes or no to a question about a particular case. With respect, I am not willing, for very good reasons, to go into details about particular organisations. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that those people—there are plenty of them in this country—who support campaigning organisations that are not planning terrorist acts abroad have nothing whatever to worry about in the Bill.
I have also, I hope, made it clear to my hon. Friends that the current situation is anomalous. It is not true that it is impossible to prosecute now for any offence of

conspiracy here to commit a crime abroad. We can already prosecute for some offences in respect of some countries. Above all, we can prosecute for conspiracy to commit murder abroad, and obviously that includes terrorist murder. No one has ever demurred from that.
What we seek to do, therefore, is to bring the law into a consistent state, so that, subject to all the safeguards I have mentioned, it is possible to secure prosecutions in appropriate cases.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), and then, as I promised, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the context of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), what would happen if the Turkish Government pleaded that there should be prosecutions within the United Kingdom? What would happen if the Turkish ambassador in London said that he believed that there should be a prosecution?
May I ask another related question, too? As I understand it, decisions on prosecution are taken in the context of what is perceived to be the public interest. We all know of cases in which prosecutions have not been brought because, we have been told, it would not be in "the public interest" to bring such a prosecution.
Would issues such as the allocation of defence contracts, troop deployments overseas and commercial factors form part of a public interest consideration that the Attorney-General and the prosecuting authorities may have to bear in mind when deciding whether a prosecution should be brought? That is what worries me in the Bill, and I hope that my right hon. Friend can give me a satisfactory answer.

Mr. Straw: I shall deal with those points in turn. My hon. Friend asks what would happen if the Turkish Government made representations about someone conspiring to commit offences in Turkey. Such representations would be treated in exactly the same way as any other representations—on their merits. In no sense would they determine whether a prosecution should take place. That would be decided on the evidence.
As for the public interest, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—like anybody who fills that office—has a difficult set of judgments to make, but he makes them in a quasi-judicial way. My hon. Friend is right to say that, every so often, the Attorney-General may decide to prosecute a case, in the public interest, and be told that he has got it wrong; he may also decide not to prosecute and be told that that, too, was the wrong decision. That is in the nature of the job.
However, the fundamental ultimate safeguard, apart from all the procedural safeguards, is that prosecution will be a matter for the court—a matter for a judge and jury


to decide. No court and no jury in this country would accept the kind of tendentious case that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends fear.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: I promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North.

Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend; I much admire the patience that he has shown to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, the conditions to be fulfilled for a prosecution to be brought contain a lot of gobbledegook, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) tried to point out earlier. I cannot understand part of what is in the Bill, so will my right hon. Friend tell the House one thing: can a person be convicted under the Bill for something that is an offence in a foreign country but is not an offence in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Straw: No; I give that undertaking categorically.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way, for the last time, to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. May I, in conjunction with the question just asked and in a spirit of seeking enlightenment, ask him to tell me and the rest of the House what subsection (6) of the proposed new section 1A of the Criminal Law Act 1977 means? It is to be found in clause 5, and I attempted to read it out earlier, but was stopped. Now I hope that I may legitimately do so. It deals with offences that are now being brought within the Bill.
For the benefit of hon. Members who do not have a copy of the Bill, subsection (6) says:
In the application of this Part of this Act to an agreement in the case of which each of the above conditions is satisfied, a reference to an offence is to be read as a reference to what would be the offence in question but for the fact that it is not an offence triable in England and Wales.
This is not an attempt to embarrass the draftsmen, but I have genuinely struggled with that provision for a long time. I wish to be helpful, and I should be perfectly happy to help my right hon. Friend redraft the provision if he told me what was required. Indeed, I would do so free.

Mr. Straw: I was about to accept my hon. and learned Friend's offer—until he said that he would do the work for nothing. People get what they pay for when it comes to legal advice; and I say that as someone who used to earn an honest copper at the Bar.
What that absolutely transparent sentence means—[Laughter.] It is the dual criminality rule. That is what it is; I promise. Indeed, in that belief we have the benefit, until he changes his mind, of the opinion of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.

Mr. Waterson: rose—

Mr. Donald Anderson: rose—

Mr. Straw: I said that I would not—

Mr. Waterson: It would save time.

Mr. Straw: I shall take two more interventions—to save time. Then I must get on.

Mr. Waterson: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary, who has been most generous in taking interventions. My question genuinely might save time in a later debate. My earlier Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to mention, covered both conspiracy and incitement to commit offences abroad. As I read his Bill—or at least, the version of it that I have—he seems to have excised the bit about incitement. Will he explain briefly to the House why he did that?

Mr. Straw: I thought that I already had. It was because we were concerned about the implications when we were in opposition, and we are still concerned about them. In criminal justice law, we should never say "never", but, if incitement were to be included, it would require many more safeguards than those in the hon. Gentleman's Bill, or in ours, in respect of conspiracy. I do not believe that it would have been justified to bring forward emergency legislation on incitement. That is why we left that part out; we shall consider it over the longer term.

Mr. Donald Anderson: rose—

Mr. Straw: This had better be the last intervention.

Mr. Anderson: It might save or curtail a speech later. Does my right hon. Friend—who has been very generous—agree with the following statement? Some cases are absolutely clear-cut, and any democratic society must have a means of combating them. For example—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. It has been brought to my attention that negotiations are continuing with the Box. That is not the normal practice of the House.

Mr. Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some cases are absolutely clear-cut, and that it would be absurd if any democratic society did not have the means to deal with them? For example, if a group—like the Baader-Meinhof group in the past—were destroying buildings and killing people in a friendly country, and if those attacks were planned in London or in the United Kingdom, it would be absurd if we were not willing and ready to deal with them.
In other, marginal, cases, public interest will arise—such as the case of the Kurds, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant)—but the Attorney-General is used to dealing with such public interest considerations. Every day, the Attorney-General takes decisions on the public interest. Obviously, therefore, the starting point must be that we must do something about international terrorism. There must be safeguards. If we did nothing, we would be very much open to criticism.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I accept what he says. I return to my point about the current anomalous position. If there were a Baader-Meinhof gang today, conspiring in Britain to commit offences in Germany, that could be the subject of an indictment for conspiracy under the Council of Europe provisions to which we have already signed up, but if such a group were conspiring to commit those offences in, for example, Australia, we could not. That is anomalous.
I now conclude my remarks. Although I fully understand the concerns that Members—including those on the Government and, I believe, Opposition Front Bench—have about the fact that we have had to be brought here during the recess, and about the fact that we are asked to accept and approve this legislation at some speed, I believe that there is, and will be, widespread support from both sides of the House for the proposals. The Bill really does represent a measured and targeted response to the appalling events that we have witnessed in Northern Ireland and around the world. It remedies specific difficulties that have been identified in taking action against the terrorists who are behind them.
It may well be that more will have to be done in future. I do not rule that out. I have described today the need for fuller consideration on a wide range of issues in the framework of wider work which we already have in hand. However, those longer-term considerations in no way diminish the desirability of acting now to take clear and self-contained steps that can have an immediate operational impact and a crucial deterrent effect. I commend the Bill to the House.

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall seek to be brief. The context of the Bill is Omagh. The atrocity there caused immeasurable human suffering, and I believe that the violence of the assault on innocent men, women and children truly shocked the nation. I associate myself with everything that the Home Secretary has said about that. It was the latest and most terrible event in the violent history of the past 30 years.
We all remember that tragic history in different ways. At the end of the 1960s, I was a reporter, covering the initial descent into violence in Northern Ireland. In the 1970s, I was a parliamentary private secretary in the Northern Ireland Office when Lord Whitelaw was Secretary of State. In the 1980s, I was evacuated, like my Cabinet colleagues, from the Grand hotel in Brighton after the IRA bomb there and, more to the point, next day, as Health Secretary, visited the hospital that was caring for the injured.
Against that background, in the 1990s I have given full support, first to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) in his very important initiative, and then to the Prime Minister and his colleagues in their efforts to achieve peace.
We should be in no doubt about the intention of the people who planted the explosives at Omagh—it was to destroy the prospect of peace, which the overwhelming majority of people, both in Ulster and in the Irish Republic, showed conclusively that they wanted. It seems to me that it is very much up to the House, as far as we can influence the outcome, to ensure that the bombers of Omagh do not succeed. One way in which that can be done is by demonstrating as united a front as possible against terrorism.
Among the hopeful developments of the past years has been the ever-increasing co-operation between our Government and the Irish Government. That makes the response to terrorism immeasurably stronger. However, I suggest to the Home Secretary that none of that is to say that there cannot be debate and different views on the exact way forward. There is no monopoly of wisdom. Judgments may well be different, but let it be clear—especially to terrorists—that the aim of any such debate is to strengthen, not weaken, our defences against terrorism. I believe that the House is united on that essential aim.
We should be frank about this debate. This is not the ideal way of making law—I doubt whether anyone would try to pretend that it was. The Bill was published for the first time yesterday evening. It is expected to have its Second Reading and complete its consideration in Committee tonight—and, I suspect, tomorrow morning—and, if all is well, it will go to the Lords and become law tomorrow.
By any measure, that gives Parliament precious little time to subject the important measures in the Bill to scrutiny. I am concerned about parliamentary scrutiny—with respect to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), who said that there should have been a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party, as its opinion was a crucial determinant. [Interruption.] He was corrected by the Home Secretary—although even then he did not seem to get the hint. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has gone."] The hon. Gentleman has indeed gone—doubtless to convene such a meeting.
The House would not normally contemplate the procedure that we are adopting with regard to the Bill. With respect, any of the measures before us could have been introduced in the past 18 months. Specifically, the provisions concerning conspiracy to commit an offence overseas have been a draft Bill ready for introduction throughout the Government's time in office. Therefore, although I understand and respect the Home Secretary's argument about urgency, this is not, by any standards, an ideal process.
Against that background, however, I welcome the fact that the provisions relating to Northern Ireland will need to be reviewed year by year. That is some defence. There was initial doubt about that, at least in the press. Had the 12-month review path not been chosen, it would have been our first amendment to the Bill in Committee. If we cannot have proper pre-legislative scrutiny, we can at least have the opportunity to review the workings of that legislation after 12 months. We should make that review real; I shall return to that subject later.
On the same theme, I welcome what the Home Secretary said on the admissibility of evidence derived from telephone tapping. It is entirely right that we should give thorough, detailed consideration to that proposal. We need to look at the entire position, and there would


certainly have been no case for adding such a measure to the Bill. We look forward to the consultation document on counter-terrorism—with the hope that it may be published as speedily as possible, as it has been promised for some time.
I turn first to the part of the Bill that deals with the provisions concerning conspiracy to commit terrorist acts abroad. That was the subject of a Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) in the 1996–97 Session, with the support of the previous Conservative Government—the Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill. I hear what the Home Secretary says about the consistent support given to the measure by the previous Labour Opposition. Actually, in the previous Parliament, Labour Members kept out of the Lobbies to prevent that Bill from being passed, but let us not make too much of that point.
The measures now proposed follow that Bill very closely. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne on his initiative, which is now near success. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who, years earlier, drew attention to the defects in the current law. Those defects, I feel, are clear. As the law stands, in some circumstances, people living in this country can conspire to commit offences overseas, knowing that they are immune from prosecution for their conspiracy in the United Kingdom. In other words, they can escape prosecution simply because their actions took place in the United Kingdom.
The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne when he introduced his Bill. Referring to a case at the Old Bailey, he said that one of the arguments advanced by defence counsel was that, although the defendants had indeed planned to cause explosions, they had planned to cause them not in Britain but overseas. Most people today would not regard that as a valid distinction, any more than they would if the position were reversed and Britain were the target of an overseas conspiracy.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that—as I think the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) would accept—one of the troubles with both Bills was the definition of a terrorist? One man's freedom fighter might be another man's terrorist. That cliché sums up, and encapsulates, a real problem; how would the right hon. Gentleman overcome it?

Sir Norman Fowler: It does sum up a problem, but I think that the dual criminality test inserted by the Government meets the point.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: May I first finish my response to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? I do not intend to take interventions in threes, as the Home Secretary did.
This is not just my view as a layman; it is the view of Lord Lloyd, a Lord of Appeal, expressed in his report on counter-terrorism legislation. He said that the most significant additional measure that the Government could

take would be to amend the law on conspiracy to facilitate the prosecution of those who conspire here to commit terrorist offences abroad. He added:
It may take a prosecution or two before the measure takes full effect but it should then serve as a demonstration, both to those involved and to the international community, of the Government's determination to make the UK as difficult and uncomfortable a place as possible for supporters of terrorism overseas.
That strikes me as an entirely legitimate objective. It is the objective set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, and I strongly support it.

Dr. Starkey: rose—

Mr. Waterson: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: Although I will not give way in threes, I will give way in twos.

Dr. Starkey: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was slightly offbeat? The dual criminality test applies to the nature of the offence, but the point that my hon. Friend was trying to make did not relate to that; his point was that the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist depends on whom the offence is committed against. If it is committed against a democratic Government, the person concerned is obviously a terrorist; but if it is committed against a despotic Government, that person may well be a freedom fighter.

Sir Norman Fowler: There will be the test of the Attorney-General, who must give advice and, indeed, permission in such a context. Moreover, the offence must be an offence in both the countries involved. If we are to seek to legislate against international terrorism, laws of this kind will be necessary, and it seems to me that the checks proposed by the Government are adequate for the purpose.

Mr. Waterson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: I give way to my hon. Friend and mentor.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful.
I can confirm that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was correct in saying that the proposition that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter was a constant theme among those who were then Opposition Members. The point that I consistently made in defending my Bill—a point that I am sure the Home Secretary would also make in defending his—was that such distinctions were not necessary. As long as the dual criminality rule applies—as long as something is a criminal offence here as well as in the other country involved—it can be prosecuted. It may then become a matter for the Attorney-General, but he will be acting, not in a political, but in a quasi-judicial capacity—deciding, for example, whether Mr. Mandela should be prosecuted for blowing up pylons in South Africa.

Sir Norman Fowler: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said.
Above all, I feel that there is a general principle at stake. The challenge of terrorism is now international, as the events of the last month have shown. Appalling terrorist bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam provide a context for today's debate, although all the evidence suggests that much of the planning of those bombings took place outside the countries where people were killed and maimed. I do not think that the Government are open to criticism in that respect: they have sought to respond.
In the face of such a challenge, we cannot afford to have gaps in the law that can be exploited. The United States now has a counter-terrorism law that criminalises conspiracies to kill, murder or maim persons outside the US, so long as at least one of the conspirators commits an act in furtherance of that conspiracy in the US. In this country, the Sexual Offences Act 1993 dealt with conspiracy and incitement in this country to commit sexual offences against children abroad. It was an important step in the fight against child sex tourism, and an example of the same principle.

Audrey Wise: The Bill does not talk about killing or maiming; it talks about offences. The Home Secretary has told us that we can already deal with conspiracies to murder. How is it acceptable simply to say that, if something is an offence here and an offence there, everything is all right? The difference between here and there is that we have political processes. We have votes, and we therefore do not expect people to sabotage the electoral system—but those who have no votes might have no option but to take direct action, and then to be called terrorists.

Sir Norman Fowler: I am clearly in an almost unique position in the House, in that I agree with what the Home Secretary has said about the clauses that we are discussing. The evidence is in Lord Lloyd's report of the inquiry into legislation against terrorism, which I am sure the hon. Lady has read. I do not think that the Home Secretary was saying that, in all circumstances, all terrorist offences were already covered by existing legislation. What he said was that some could be covered; otherwise, we would not be debating this legislation today.

Mr. Beith: As the right hon. Gentleman has quoted from Lord Lloyd's report, he must recognise that what Lord Lloyd recommended was that the law should be amended
to facilitate the prosecution of those who conspire here to commit terrorist acts abroad.
That does not include the wide range of offences referred to in the Bill.

Sir Norman Fowler: Those were the terms of reference that Lord Lloyd was given. I am confining my remarks to terrorist offences; if the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the provisions should not be extended to, for instance, drug offences, I am not sure that I go along with him.

Mr. Öpik: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: With respect, I think that these points can be developed later.
I want to go at least some way towards meeting the point made by the hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise). Clearly, there must be safeguards to preserve legitimate opposition—political opposition to foreign regimes—but the requirement for dual criminality will surely mean that, for the legislation to apply, the offence must also be an offence here in the United Kingdom. I support that part of the Bill.
Let me, however, say something in parentheses about international terrorism and the issues that we have been discussing. We have tended to debate so far on the basis that only legislation and the making of law will be effective. Obviously, we must underline the point that one of the most important measures we can take is to have as strong and effective a police service as we possibly can. It would be less than frank of me not to say that we do not like to see the signs that—in some forces, at any rate—strengths are going down. We would want to look at that closely as far as the Metropolitan police is concerned.
Our aim should be to have a general law covering counter-terrorism and the treatment of terrorists which applies to every part of the United Kingdom. The Omagh massacre proves that—for the present, at least—there is a need for emergency power legislation. According to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—this was repeated by the Home Secretary—the aim of the measures relating to Northern Ireland is to increase the isolation of the small number of individuals and groups on either side of the border who are still engaged in violence.
The Home Secretary is saying that membership of the Real IRA is already a criminal offence in Northern Ireland, but that experience has shown that it is virtually impossible to secure a conviction for that alone. Thus, we have the proposal to make admissible in court the evidence of a senior police officer that such a person is a member of an illegal organisation, and the proposal to take into account the response of the accused.
Clearly, there are important questions concerning the fairness of the measure. There is always a balance to be struck between the protection of the public generally and the chance of injustice to an individual. We cannot just shrug those issues off. We must always remember that one of the aims of counter-terrorist policy must be to keep the support of public opinion. It does no good if legislation introduced for the best possible motives results in public support diminishing.
We are talking about the balance between the general protection of the public and the rights of the individual. There are important arguments of principle on some of the measures in the Bill, and I respect the motives of those who have made them. Whatever safeguards are put in, we are still dealing, essentially, with—for example—hearsay evidence given to a court by a senior policeman. Some will find that conclusive in their objection to the Bill.
An alternative line of questioning is to ask how effective the measure will be in practice. After all the dust of debate has settled, how many convictions of members of illegal organisations will take place? I do not want to deny the strength of some of those questions, and a reasoned amendment is before the House. However, the House has a straight choice in terms of giving the Bill a Second Reading—do the possible benefits to the public generally from the Bill outweigh those objections? In my view, the possible benefits do outweigh the objections.
It is fair for the Government to say that they have modified the Bill to answer at least some of the questions. They have made it clear, for example, that the evidence of a senior policeman alone will not be sufficient for a conviction. In the same way, evidence on the initial response of an arrested person alone will not be sufficient to convict. On a more positive note, it is reasonable in principle for people convicted to risk forfeiture of money or property which might be in their possession at the time of conviction, and I support very much the important proposals made in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
I see a strong case for seeking to achieve as much uniformity as possible in the measures against terrorists on either side of the border. Given the cross-border nature of many terrorist offences, that seems to be an entirely desirable aim. However, if that is to be the guiding principle of policy—I very much see the case for that—as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said today, it makes the Government's actions in removing from the statute book even the power to have internment more and more open to question.
I am not sure that the Prime Minister answered that point. The Government have abandoned the matter. The Irish Government retain the power and, frankly, I would have thought it sensible for the Government to do the same. One of the lessons is that one cannot predict the future or terrorism. One cannot predict exactly the circumstances in which a counter-terrorist law will be required. I would have thought that a prudent Government would not lightly discard measures that are in their armoury. That was the point made by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that internment led to great resentment? The difference between internment and this proposal is that, under the proposal, the accused will at least know the sentence he will serve when it is imposed. Internment was indeterminate and led to resentment among Irish nationals, whether they were Catholic or Protestant.

Sir Norman Fowler: I think that what the hon. Gentleman is arguing is that the Government's measures are an alternative form of internment, which is not exactly what I thought the Government were proposing. Although no one but a fool would say that there were not difficulties with internment, there were some successes. However, it is foolish to give away the power at this stage and not to have it even as a reserved power.

Mr. Mullin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The Bill is being introduced in the shadow of Omagh. If there is a chance that deaths and injuries can be avoided in the future by such a Bill, it deserves support. I do not intend to double-guess the police and security advice going to the Government on this issue. I suggest that one way forward is to take advantage of the 12-month review provision and to ask the Government to provide the fullest possible report in time for the debate in 12 or six months'

time on the workings of the Bill in practice. We have an amendment that makes that point, to which we shall return in Committee.

Mr. Sayeed: Before we persuade ourselves that a Bill such as this will deal with the Continuity IRA, Real IRA, the INLA or whoever, can we remember that it is in the power of Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and the others in the army council of the IRA to tell those perpetrating this form of terrorism to stop or take the consequences?

Sir Norman Fowler: Telling them to stop is entirely what those people should be doing.
That brings me to my next point. There is an issue in the debate which is even more fundamental—decommissioning. In her article in The Observer, the Secretary of State said:
In the aftermath of the Omagh bombing the confidence of people in Northern Ireland has been devastated. They need to be reassured, to feel more secure and to feel more hopeful again.
She went on to say that that was why President Clinton's visit was so important. President Clinton's visit is important, but, by itself, will not be conclusive.
I agree with the Secretary of State that our aim should be to provide reassurance and to help the people of Northern Ireland to feel more secure. However, I would have thought that those objectives would be more likely to be achieved if we could make clear and identifiable progress on the surrender of explosives and arms. In other words, we should dismantle the apparatus of terror.
It is no reply to say that, at Omagh, it appears that stockpiled explosive was not used. I agree with the comments of the leader of the Ulster Unionists in the Second Reading debate of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill:
The decommissioning of terrorist weapons has been and continues to be an important litmus test of sincerity … No one in his right mind would want those weapons to be left lying around to fall into who knows whose hands and be available for use by who knows who in the future."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1097–98.]
What is clear is that the presence of explosives and firearms poses an immense threat. What would bring the greatest reassurance to the people of Northern Ireland is prisoner releases going hand in hand with the decommissioning process.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: No.
Self-evidently, that is not happening. This is not a case of making new conditions. It is keeping to the principles that were clearly set out by the Prime Minister in his speech in Belfast in May—namely, that there should be
full co-operation with the independent commission on decommissioning to implement the provisions of the agreement".
Therefore, I welcome the news that Sinn Fein will be working with the Independent Commission on Decommissioning, but the reassurance that is wanted is that progress is being made with the surrender of explosives and arms. Nothing would do more to provide the sense of security that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wishes to achieve than that.

Mr. Cash: I agree with the sentiment that my right hon. Friend expresses, but does he agree that a substantive


point needs to be examined in these proceedings? We must ensure that there is compatibility between the arrangements for early release under section 3 of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and this Bill, so that we get a proper, parallel and mutual arrangement. In that way, no person would be given early release and then go on to use weapons that have not been decommissioned, ensuring that there is a proper security arrangement in the interests of the Republic of Ireland and this country.

Sir Norman Fowler: That is what we all want. There are tremendous difficulties with the prisoner release process, but I will leave it as I have set it out. Basically, what the Conservative party wants will come as no surprise to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who will reply, because we have made this point before. We want the two processes to go hand in hand. Public support depends on that.
We want the peace process to succeed and we will do our utmost to assist that. We want to bring as much reassurance as possible to the people of Northern Ireland and we believe that the proposals that we have made over past months will assist that process. We want the surrender of explosives and arms. We want, above all, in considering the Bill, to make it less likely that there will ever again be a recurrence of the terrible events in Omagh a few weeks ago. It is on that basis that we support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I welcome the modifications that have been made to the Bill since we first heard about it a week ago. It was said then that people could be sent down for up to 10 years on the word of a single police officer. Had that still been the case, I and, I am sure, one or two other Members could not have voted for it. I am glad that incitement has also been removed from the Bill.
Some of the other changes in the past week have been helpful, but I still have grave misgivings about the Bill. As others have already remarked, it bears all the signs of having been conceived in haste and I fear that we may repent at leisure, as we did with internment and the prevention of terrorism Act, both of which did little or nothing to combat terrorism but instead helped to alienate a generation of Irish people and created fertile soil for the recruitment of a new generation of terrorists.
One thing puzzled me in the speech of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), and I would have made this point if he had allowed me to intervene. I am genuinely mystified by his party's attachment to or nostalgia for internment. It was catastrophic. It had a disastrous impact.
Many of the people who were put away were not terrorists in any shape or form. Enormous abuses occurred. The quality of the intelligence used was very poor, to put it mildly, and it led to the recruitment as terrorists of a lot of people who previously did not feature on the records. Happily, we are not going back down that road, but the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield would be wise to study the tea leaves a little more carefully.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's view on what happened in 1972, but does he

agree that the quality of current intelligence and the nature of the situation are now completely different? Such conditions no longer prevail.

Mr. Mullin: I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says—

Mr. Brian White: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mullin: May I just get the second sentence out of my mouth? I agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), but the quality of intelligence has not necessarily improved as much as everyone here believes. The security forces rounded up Iraqis during the Gulf war, but they all had to be released without charge—the security forces got it utterly wrong again. The hon. and learned Gentleman laughs, but that is a much more recent example.
I agree: we are dealing with a very small number of people and it should be possible to identify them. The quality of intelligence available should be very good now, given the number of defections that have occurred, but the only point that I was making was in response to the ones that were made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, who harked back to the golden age of 1972, which, as the hon. and learned Member for North Down and I agree, was not quite such a golden age.

Mr. White: In 1972, it was said that intelligence was much better in the 1970s than it had been in the 1950s during a previous IRA threat. Every generation, it is said, has learnt the lessons of the past and its intelligence is much better, so what have we learnt that is going to be an improvement this time?

Mr. Mullin: As it happens, I do think that the quality of intelligence is much better. It darn well should be—goodness knows we have had long enough to learn a few lessons.
I have three concerns about the Bill. First, I am not convinced that it will be effective; indeed, it could have the opposite effect to what is intended. During my search for the real Birmingham bombers, I interviewed a number of young men who joined the IRA in the mid-1970s. When I asked why they had signed up, they invariably gave one of two reasons—Bloody Sunday or internment.
Those who advocate more repressive solutions should bear in mind the lessons of history. I agree with what the Prime Minister has said. We should not be imprisoned in the past, but we should take a bit of notice because this is a road down which we have travelled.
If people are interested in catching terrorists—as I am; indeed, in one or two instances I have had better luck than the security services, even though they were armed with the vast panoply of powers that they tell us they need—there is no substitute for patient detective work, leading to convictions based on credible evidence. We have had some successes recently in relation to bombings on the mainland; that is the way to proceed.
My suspicions are always aroused when anonymous members of the security services are quoted, as they were a few days ago in The Daily Telegraph, as saying that they "know" who the terrorists are and would have no trouble putting them away, if only the namby-pamby


politicians could be persuaded to dispense with the safeguards that we used quaintly to associate with civilisation. That is what the security services said before internment and it was a disaster. Much of their information was mistaken. I fear that that could happen again.
My second misgiving relates to the climate in which the new powers will be exercised; this is perhaps the most important point that I have to make. They will be exercised in a jurisdiction where interviews with terrorist suspects are not yet audio-recorded. That is incredible because they are audio-recorded over here.
I am not satisfied with what I have heard from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on that point. He is being given the runaround, the source of which, I suspect, comes from Northern Ireland. I am sure that he knows where to look for the source. I do not accept that there are so many difficulties—indeed, I know that there are not. The difficulty is political and it is easily resolvable. The Government could easily concede the point this evening. I do not understand the obstacle.

Dr. Lynne Jones: The House authorities have been able to organise the removal of the scaffolding and the preparation of the Chamber so that we can reconvene. Perhaps they could advise on how to organise audio equipment in Irish police stations.

Mr. Mullin: There is no need. The equipment is already in Irish police stations. The police can use it if they want to, but they do not want to.
After my earlier exchange with the Home Secretary, I made a few inquiries. Apparently, 1 January is the target date. That will be too late—or I assume that it will be. Presumably those who are going to be lifted under the Bill will have been lifted by 1 January. Anyone who has not been lifted is not likely to be available to be lifted. With all due respect, 1 January is not good enough. The problem is not in the Home Office, but over the water. I hope that whoever needs to be pressed will be pressed so that we can come up with a concession.
The issue is vital to the credibility of the legislation. If the Bill is not credible and the first cases that come to court collapse, we shall all look pretty silly. If the RUC is interested in producing credible evidence in court, it should be aware that what I am suggesting is the way to go about it. I am sure that the Home Secretary recognises that this is a helpful point. It is designed to make the legislation work without alienating a swathe of opinion that is well on the way to being alienated. He may have seen the statement put out last week or earlier this week by 30 lawyers in Ireland, which was signed by a number of lawyers over here. It talks of the "grave disquiet" arising from the legislative changes. It says:
Existing emergency legislation and its application has consistently led to violations of human rights and … its continued use has contributed greatly to a public lack of confidence in the rule of law.
We must bear that in mind. We want to build up the rule of law in Northern Ireland. We want the forces of law and order to be respected, as they should be in every part of the United Kingdom. The statement says:
It is astonishing therefore that it is proposed that a belief expressed by a member of that force that an accused is a member of a proscribed organisation will be sufficient".

That will no longer be sufficient, but the necessary corroborating evidence, such as it is, could easily come from another policeman. The one who has to go to court and assert with complete confidence that so and so is a member of a terrorist organisation will be a superintendent. The guy who tells him that, during interview in the interrogation centre, a chap sat silently or did not respond to questioning is likely to be a constable or even a sergeant. The corroboration will not be very serious if it consists of no more than a superintendent and a sergeant corroborating each other.
We shall also run into difficulties with the European Court of Human Rights. I am not certain that the current wording of the legislation will get through the court.

Mr. Robin Corbett: My hon. Friend is talking about the audio recording of interrogations. Is that not even more important in Northern Ireland, where such matters go before courts without juries—the Diplock courts?

Mr. Mullin: That is an important point. We have to bear in mind the climate in which the powers will be exercised. Interviews with terrorist suspects are not yet audio-recorded, solicitors are routinely excluded from interviews, the courts operate without juries and the judiciary is peculiarly close to the security forces. Moreover, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which is designed to safeguard the rights of suspects, does not apply in terrorist cases. It is still possible in Northern Ireland to send someone down for life on the word of a single informer or an unrecorded or uncorroborated statement obtained after hours of relentless interrogation in Castlereagh. That is the background against which the Bill will be implemented.
There is a serious possibility that mistakes will be made and that the provisions will be seen by some as an opportunity to settle old scores. I would not be surprised to find a few people on the list who were not members of terrorist organisations, but were just called in for a conversation to remember times past. A solicitor in Northern Ireland to whom I spoke yesterday said that names were already being whispered to newspapers of people who were liable to be picked up without their being members of any of the proscribed organisations.
I do not understand how it will be possible to defend oneself against an allegation. The superintendent will say in court that he is certain that the suspect is a member of a terrorist organisation. He will then be asked the basis of his assertion. He will have to say that unfortunately all his material is covered by public immunity, and then sit down. That will not look very good. A lot of people will be watching. The superintendent may not even know the suspect whom he is fingering. He may be relying on material supplied from south of the border, or on the word of junior officers, who themselves may be relying on the word of a third party whose identity they are not at liberty to disclose. The scope for error or abuse is enormous.
I am also uneasy about the powers to confiscate assets. I hope that they will be used sparingly. The families of terrorists may know little or nothing about the activities of the convicted partner. Rendering families destitute will not win us any friends.
A lot of doors will be knocked down as a result of the Bill. Most of those at whom it is targeted—I hear estimates from people who ought to know of between


30 and 200—will not simply sit at home waiting to be lifted; most of them will disappear. A lot of the doors that get knocked down will be the wrong doors. In addition, mistakes will be made. Some of the intelligence will be out of date and there will be cases of mistaken identity. Before we know where we are, we shall be back to alienating a much wider section of the community than those against whom the Bill is targeted. The image of the RUC already leaves a certain amount to be desired. Policing by consent, which we all want, will be more difficult to achieve.
My fear is that, in the name of fighting terrorism, we shall end up fanning the flames. Just when republican terrorism appears to be imploding, we shall provide it with a lifeline. I pray that that will not be the case, but it is a possibility which we should not exclude. Ministers ought to be aware, whatever is said in the debate, that there is widespread unease in the House—and not just on this side; several Opposition Members have expressed to me their unease with this hasty legislation. It could all go badly wrong if we are not careful. That is why I have tabled amendments that I hope are helpful. One relates to audio recording, another to the presence of a solicitor. That should not be controversial—it is not controversial in the rest of the country. The Government could concede those points tonight if they set their mind to it. I am pleading with them. It would do them a lot of good, because it would make the legislation more credible in the eyes of the wider world. There is no reason why audio recording and the presence of solicitors cannot be organised overnight. The problem is political, not practical. The changes will happen only if they are made a condition of the Bill, as my amendments propose. We would then find that the practical objections melted away like snow on the edge of a volcano.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Mullin: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am going to sit down. I hope that the Government will take my points seriously into account by the time we come to Third Reading.

Mr. John Major: The objective of the Bill is one that we can all share—no Member of this House condones terrorism. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Government are engaged in defeating terrorism. In that endeavour, they deserve our support—they certainly have mine; I have solidly supported the Government in recent months and, provided they do the right thing, I shall continue to do so in future. But, however worthy the Government's motives, we have a duty, as the Bill goes through the House, to ensure workable, practical and credible legislation.
The Bill has been brought forward in some haste. It has been produced for perfectly understandable reasons—some of them are very good reasons indeed—in response to the public mood for action following the atrocity at Omagh, so I am not too critical of the speed with which the Government have acted. When I was younger and knew much more than I do now, I might have made exactly the same decision and introduced this legislation with great speed, so I sympathise with what the Government have done.
However, the Bill shows everywhere the signs of haste. The Government are asking the House to agree to it today and I am sure that we shall—I shall give the Government the benefit of any doubts that I might have. However, unless we are extremely fortunate, the price of the House giving its agreement today might be that, whatever the merits of the motives of the Government in introducing the Bill, it will not have been properly and fairly considered and will be shown, in action, to be defective in some of its aspects.
We are asked to endorse a policy that the Government have speedily assembled to deal with the security situation and events in Northern Ireland. It is almost bound to contain loopholes—indeed, it would be a miracle if it did not. The time available to us and the speed with which we have to act today may mean that we shall have to return to this issue and this legislation at some point, to ensure that it meets the objectives that we all share and which are the reasons for our supporting it today.
Not every aspect of the Bill is urgent. The clauses relating to conspiracy to commit an offence are not new to the House; my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) introduced a private Member's Bill with similar content. The target of those clauses—militant groups planning offences overseas—are, in the main, repellent groups and it is right that we should seek to take action. However, it is difficult and complex to define such groups and the precise point at which they move beyond legitimate overseas opposition to engaging in actions that require the Government to say, "That is intolerable and we shall take action in this country to stop them." The objective of the provisions is laudable and I thoroughly support it—let there be no doubt about that—but the definition of such groups is extremely tricky. We have already seen some examples, the most obvious being that of groups in this country supporting the Kurds against Saddam Hussein, but that is by no means the only example that will be mentioned today.
My point is simple: we should legislate with great care and it would have been better had we done so with more time for consultation and consideration. In so doing, we might produce more effective legislation and avoid injustices that we might perpetrate today, and we might not have to return to this matter, as I fear we shall. The Government deserve support for their intentions, but their approach runs the risk—I put it no more strongly than that—of producing bad legislation that has side-effects that we shall not have considered, such is the speed with which we are to deal with the Bill.
The guts of the Bill, which I suspect contain the imperative that encouraged the Government to introduce the legislation so speedily, are the clauses relating to evidence regarding membership of proscribed organisations. Of course, it has long been an offence to belong to such an organisation, but no prosecutions—certainly none of which I am aware—have been brought, because it is extremely difficult to obtain a conviction without disclosing intelligence information that, if disclosed, might imperil not only lives but the flow of such information in future.
The Bill moves the law forward a little: it provides that the prosecution can take account of the word of a senior police officer that, in his view, the accused is a member of a proscribed organisation. That is a weakening of the original briefing—it may have been misreported—that led me to believe that it would be proposed to the


House that prosecutions could be brought on the word alone of a police officer. If that was the original intention, I believe that the House would not and should not have supported it, so the change to the provision in the Bill as published is welcome; however, it leaves several questions that we have a duty to consider.
Never mind the theory, or our determination to get at the evil people whom all of us want to see safely behind bars—how, in practice, in a Diplock court, with no jury, will the provision work? A senior police officer says, "That man is a member of a proscribed organisation," but the man says, "No, I'm not." What is the judge to do? Without the weakening of the Bill, the judge would have been in no position to ensure that there was corroborative evidence, but now there must be corroborative evidence. The Home Secretary was absolutely right to make the change and reword the clause because, if he had not, the result would have been executive detention.
Having said that, what is the corroborative evidence to be? Is it to be intelligence information? Is the evidence to be provided to the court—to the judge, with prosecuting and defending counsel present? Is that what is to happen in future? If so, I hope that we shall be told, because such an assurance would ease some, not all, of the concerns in the mind of some hon. Members. If that is not what is to happen, we should be told what the corroborative evidence is to be. If it is now agreed that there is need for corroboration, for the prosecution to prove the case beyond doubt and for "innocent until proven guilty" to be the presumption, how much, in practice, does the newly reworded clause add to existing law, which was the purpose of bringing the House back during the recess?
It is clear that the clause adds a little to existing law, but not as much as many people think. The senior police officer reiterates his assertion that the accused is a member of a proscribed organisation, but self-evidently he believes that, or he would not have brought the case in the first place, and he will have to produce corroborative evidence. Therefore, that provision, of itself, adds very little. The inference drawn from the silence of the accused—a novel proposition which I hope has only limited scope—adds something as well. However, the combined effect of those two provisions is far less than most of us believed it would be when we first heard that draconian legislation was to be introduced in the House.
Had the legislation been introduced in its original form, undiluted, allowing conviction without supporting evidence, it would indeed have been draconian—and actually rather objectionable. Requiring supporting evidence, as the Bill now does, presents a change that will, I suspect, make obtaining convictions a little easier, but that is not a great sweeping change and it will not make a significant material difference to the likelihood of there being convictions. Somewhere, that old Athenian statesman Draco will be holding his hands to his sides and chortling at the thought that that is supposed to be a draconian change.

Mr. Corbett: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's understanding that, when an accusation is levelled against

a defendant who chooses to remain silent, the court will be able to regard that silence as corroboration of the charge?

Mr. Major: I think that what I said a few moments ago implies that that is exactly my understanding, which is why I said that I hope that the provision has only a limited perspective and will be applied only to specific matters. It is a novel proposition, and it would perhaps not commend itself to many of us other than in the special circumstances of the horrors that we have witnessed in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made the point that we must strike a balance between the absolute liberty of the individual who is charged and the general well-being. That is a difficult balance, and I do not criticise the Government on their efforts in that direction.
There are two halves to the Bill. Clauses 5 to 7 are potentially welcome, if and when they are well drafted, but their provisions would, frankly, have been better introduced in due course, after consultation, consideration and reflection, once we knew how to make them effective, rather than being rushed through so speedily. Clauses 1 to 4 appear—again, if the original reports were right—to have been changed and, effectively, watered down. That watering down is welcome, because of the objectionable nature of the original proposition, but the legislation that we have been called back to consider is unlikely to be as effective as many people may believe.
More effective may be the further enhanced security co-operation with the Republic of Ireland that the Prime Minister spoke of so rightly and so warmly this afternoon. It has improved greatly, and I hope that it will remain at its present high level. I do not wish to press the Home Secretary on the details, but I hope that when the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach met they considered carefully how we could continue to enhance that co-operation. It would perhaps be unwise of me to suggest to the Home Secretary precisely where it could be improved, but both he and I know the areas in which improvements can be made and consolidated—made permanent, not temporary—to ensure that there is no hiding place for those who are prepared to murder both in the north of Ireland and in the south, if it is convenient for them to do so.
The Prime Minister has often articulated the views of the overwhelming majority of the population on the problem that has been faced by Northern Ireland for so long. He said at Hillsborough that this is not a time for soundbites. He certainly articulated my view in that, and it is perhaps unfortunate that the hand of history fell on his shoulder that very afternoon. He is right, however, and the fact that he is pursuing discussions both with the political parties and with the Irish Republic is a reflection of that. Let no one be in any doubt: the problem cannot and will not be solved without the two Governments working together.
The Prime Minister was right to express his determination to track down the murderers of Omagh, and I hope that we will soon hear of progress in that respect.
As we enact a Bill to toughen measures against terrorism, it is worth taking just a moment—literally, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to say something about prisoner releases and decommissioning. In the Good Friday


agreement, the Prime Minister conceded the release of prisoners without immediate decommissioning, but on an individual prisoner basis and with the promise of parallel decommissioning over two years.
The Prime Minister was right to make clear the crucial point that every prisoner release was to be considered on its own individual merits and that there would be no blanket release. I have supported that approach before, both in public and in private, but it is inconceivable that every prisoner convicted and currently in prison for past terrorist offences is a born-again democrat, now safe for release. Some will not be safe for release, and that is why the Prime Minister conceded only individual consideration, leading to individual release.
I understand that the releases will soon accelerate. I hope that, as they do, the Government will state publicly—the people of Northern Ireland, in particular, would welcome the reassurance—the number of prisoners considered for release, how many are to be released and how many have been found unsafe for release. That would provide a reassurance that there is indeed individual consideration and, emphatically, not blanket release. I hope and believe, also, that the Government will continue the pressure for the decommissioning foreseen in parallel with the releases in the Good Friday agreement.
Yesterday, Sinn Fein said that the war was over, repeating the IRA message that I received in the early 1990s. That could be a cynical manoeuvre by Sinn Fein to distance itself from any further violence, or a genuine and worthwhile development and a preparation for the decommissioning that is still necessary in the process. I believe that it must come and, increasingly, as the weight of opinion in Ireland and elsewhere develops—against the weight of history, it may be said—I believe that it will begin to happen in practice.
Despite the horror of Omagh, there is still reason for hope in the process, albeit scarred by the death and misery that were inflicted. Inch by inch, we move forward and the impossible dream of a few years ago moves closer to becoming a practical reality. I am uncertain how much the Bill will contribute, but I think that it will contribute something. It is an advance—although less of one than is claimed—and, in its amended form, it is worthy of the support of the House.
I offer the Bill my support as part of the continuing process, so that the House can show—let there be no doubt or division—that it still believes that it is possible to defeat terrorism and that the democratic determination of politicians north and south of the border and here on the mainland, and the courage of the people of Northern Ireland, can and will have their own reward in a future for Northern Ireland that so many of us take for granted for our own part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. David Winnick: I well understand the concern that has been expressed about the Bill. I appreciate the fears that it could be counter-productive and do more harm than good. No one disputes—I certainly do not—that many mistakes were made in putting into effect previous legislation on Northern Ireland. The Government are clearly no less aware of those mistakes than the rest of the House. I recognise the concerns, and certainly do not dismiss them, but I take the view that, following the tragedy of Omagh and the measures that the Irish Government intend to take, it is right to support the Bill.
Much has been said about civil liberties. It will be a poor day for the House if the time ever comes when we are not concerned about civil liberties, the safeguarding of which is one of the most essential reasons for having a House of Commons. However, we must also be concerned about preserving life. Twenty-eight people were slaughtered in Omagh and one wonders how such an act could be committed by fellow human beings. One of those killed was a baby of 18 months; when I heard the news, I thought it likely that, in other circumstances, that child could have lived for another 85 years. Her life and the lives of her mother and grandmother were taken away by terrorism on that terrible day of 15 August. Civil liberties are crucial, but such liberties and democratic rights are not much use in the graveyard or the crematorium. If we are united on nothing else, we are united in our condemnation of that slaughter.
We are debating whether we should act along the lines of the Bill and whether such legislation would reduce the possibility of other terrorist outrages. I was interested to read the comments of Mr. Colin Parry, whose son Tim was killed in the bomb explosion at Warrington five years ago. Mr. Parry is reported to have said that he welcomes the Bill and that it is long overdue. He speaks with much sad and tragic experience of terrorism.
I have four reasons for being in favour of the Bill, although I have some reservations, particularly on clauses 5 to 7. I shall relate my remarks to Northern Ireland. First, after the Omagh atrocity, it would be difficult for most people in Northern Ireland to understand why, if the Irish Government and Parliament could bring in such measures, the British Government could not do so. The two Governments worked hard to bring about the Good Friday agreement. Why should they not co-operate closely on further action to deal with terrorism? Imagine the feelings in Omagh and in other parts of Northern Ireland if the British Government seemed to be dragging their feet while the Irish Government took the action that they said they would take almost immediately after the crime.
I presume that one of the proposed north-south bodies that will arise from the Belfast agreement will deal with terrorism and that there will be close co-operation between the Republic and Northern Ireland. The Bill illustrates the continued close co-operation between security and intelligence sources and police in the United Kingdom and the Republic.
Secondly, it is obvious that the Irish will go ahead with their legislation. I do not know whether there will be opposition to it today in the Dail, but it seems that the Irish Government's proposals will be passed almost unanimously. If those proposals become law in the Republic, people who could be apprehended there would be able, if we do not pass the Bill, to go to Northern Ireland. If that happened, how credible would be our stand against terrorism?
Thirdly, it is said that the most effective weapon against breakaway IRA and terrorist groups on the other side is the sheer revulsion among Northern Ireland people about what happened on 15 August. The same argument, of course, that further terrorist outrages are unlikely because of revulsion over the Omagh atrocity, could be used in the Republic. However, we know from experience that, irrespective of revulsion over terrorist outrages, there have been further crimes against humanity. We may recall the outrage over what happened in Enniskillen in November 1987 when 11 people were killed at a


Remembrance day parade. That did not prevent eight soldiers from being put to death in Northern Ireland in August 1988. In September 1989, 11 people were killed in an attack on Royal Marines in Deal in Kent. In January 1992, eight Protestants were killed in Cookstown and, a month later, five Catholics were murdered in a betting shop. There is genuine revulsion now, but it does not mean that, in time, terrorists will not consider it appropriate to commit further outrages. We must bear that in mind.
Fourthly, without the proposed Government action the Good Friday agreement could be endangered. Some Northern Ireland politicians who are in no way involved in terrorism want to use every excuse—they have every right to do so—to destroy that agreement. If the Government do not take the action that the Irish Government are taking, it will become difficult, and perhaps very difficult within the main Unionist party, to continue to be a party to the agreement. For those reasons, and even with my reservations, I think that the Government's action is right and justified.
As the Prime Minister said, the terrorists struck in Omagh for a political reason. They were not senseless terrorists and no one would say that they were killing for the sake of killing and had no political motive. To say that would be to underestimate them. Their clear political purpose was to create such fear, insecurity and despair in Northern Ireland that the Good Friday agreement would be in jeopardy because people would conclude that it was no use and would not bring the peace, security and progress for which both Governments had hoped. The more the terrorists want to destroy an agreement that will allow Northern Ireland to be governed in the fairest possible way, the more the House should be determined that what the electorate voted for with such a large majority in Northern Ireland and the Republic should not be destroyed by terror or by other undemocratic means.
The question is one of judgment and balance. I respect the strong views of my colleagues who say that, despite Omagh and our total condemnation of what happened there, the Bill—bearing in mind what happened in the early 1970s—would be counter-productive and would provide political ammunition for the terrorists. They have reached a conclusion, but, for the reasons that I advanced, I have reached a different one. In my judgment, it is important to approve the measure, but that is the judgment of just one Back Bencher, although perhaps I have some experience of Northern Ireland matters.

Audrey Wise: My hon. Friend refers to the conclusions that have been reached by his colleagues. The main conclusion, which was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), is that the measure could and should be improved. Is my hon. Friend distancing himself from that conclusion, or does he support the proposed improvements, such as those in respect of audio-recording and the presence of a solicitor?

Mr. Winnick: As a politician, I may have defects, but I hope that I have a reasonably open mind. I shall certainly study the amendments. If I believe that they are useful in furthering the Bill's aims, I will give them serious consideration, and I see no reason why I should not.
I refer briefly to clauses 5 to 7. Britain should not be a safe haven for those who wish to commit terrorist offences. One can constantly use the argument about the anti-apartheid struggle. I was involved almost from the beginning in the anti-apartheid movement. I was not aware of any moves to commit murder of any kind abroad; nor was it ever suggested by British sources, including Tory Governments, that the anti-apartheid movement was involved in any way in conspiracies to murder abroad. That argument can be overstretched.
All Labour Members and a number of Opposition Members believed that the liberation of South Africa from apartheid was justified, and some of us are proud of what we did on that issue before and during the time that we were in the House. That does not mean that groups of people in Britain who have been given asylum—fundamentalists, much along the same lines as those who caused the atrocity in Omagh and those responsible for the terrible atrocities that have caused even more casualties in east Africa—should consider it their holy writ, with the democratic freedoms that we have, and long may they remain here, to carry out conspiracies to murder overseas. I see no reason why that should be so and I do not believe for one moment that the British people would wish it so.
I recognise the difficulties. I recognise that, as the Bill stands—this is why I have some reservations about clauses 5 to 7—there is a possibility that people who have genuinely sought asylum and been given it, who are in no way involved in the plotting of conspiracies abroad of murder or any other kind, could be caught up in its provisions. That is why I share the view of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and others that particular care should be given to those clauses. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) asked of me, I shall give even more consideration to amendments to clauses 5 to 7.
Nevertheless, despite all the reservations, I believe that we have a duty and responsibility, following the terrible atrocity at Omagh, and given the possibility that there will be other terrorist groups, breakaways from the IRA who claim that they have a holy writ, and perhaps loyalists involved in a backlash who will also argue that they have a holy writ to preserve Northern Ireland from the Belfast agreement, to give whatever support we can to measures that can prevent further outbreaks of terrorism from occurring.
There is no iron guarantee. None of us can be certain—neither those who support the measure, nor those who oppose it. But I am convinced that, on balance, we are taking the right steps. My right hon. and hon. Friends will have every justification in supporting the Bill in the Division Lobby later tonight.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) used a phrase, which I would not have chosen, about civil rights not being important in the graveyard. Right-wing and authoritarian movements to which he and I are opposed would use that phrase rather too readily. I would put the point differently: the right to the protection of the law against arbitrary violence is an important civil right, alongside a number of other civil rights, all of which are important, such as the right not to be convicted of a crime that one did not commit. To have due process of law is an important civil right. We must address all of them.
I start by making it clear that, despite concerns which I shall outline, Liberal Democrats believe that key elements in the Bill should be brought into law urgently. We recognise that there is a certain responsibility on us as an Opposition party, when we have an historic opportunity to achieve in Northern Ireland a peace that has been denied to the people of Northern Ireland for so many years, to give the Government some room for manoeuvre, some benefit of the doubt, on some of our concerns. But we cannot set them all aside, and I want to express some by means of amendments in the hope that the Government will improve the Bill.
The Government in the Irish Republic have already said that they are prepared to accept a number of amendments to the Bill that they are considering in the Dail today. The Government have themselves moved on a number of issues and I want that process to continue during our debates tonight. I welcome some of the safeguards that have been included in the Bill. If hon. Members were not aware of them, it was because the Home Office was so late in producing the Bill. I am grateful for the Government's co-operation with us as a party in trying to give us as much notice as they could. However, the fact remains that the production of the Bill, the clear intentions of which were set out by the Prime Minister in his speech at Omagh, was unconscionably long in coming out. That was partly because of their decision to tack on the conspiracy measures to which I shall refer again later.
We welcome safeguards such as the fact that the evidence of a police officer cannot by itself be sufficient. We welcome the annual renewal provision, which we want preceded by a review. We welcome the insistence that consultation with a solicitor must be available, and it should be clear that the solicitor can remain present, as is normal practice in Great Britain during the questioning process.
We are addressing other concerns by means of amendments, with which I shall not deal now, because we can do that in Committee; I shall simply give a couple of illustrations to explain the sort of problems that we have. Take the forfeiture provisions, which not many people have mentioned. They are useful provisions, but they can give rise to problems. The forfeiture of someone's home because weapons were stored in the roof space may be inappropriate or counter-productive when other members of the family did not know that that had been done or were subject to great coercion.
I find myself in a difficult position, because we must consider the case of people who co-operated with the Provisional IRA in ways that we might deplore and who are now committed to a ceasefire, but who are in a locality where they are subject to duress by ex-Provisionals who have gone over to the so-called Real IRA, the small splinter group that is continuing the horrific violence. There is a lot of coercion in that respect and we would not help in communities if we finished up turning people out of their homes. The courts are required to hear representations from people in such situations, but people may be frightened to bring forward such representations, so I counsel caution on the part of the authorities in using those forfeiture provisions. We have tabled an amendment to tighten that up.
Another example is the inference drawn from silence. People who have been involved in the Provisional IRA may be frightened of incriminating themselves in respect of what they did when the Provisionals were involved in

violence, even though they have no truck and no involvement with those who are continuing the violence now. There are some practical problems where the Bill could be tightened up a little and we have sought to do that by way of amendments.
As will be apparent from what I said earlier, my biggest concern is the inclusion of such extensive conspiracy provisions which do not arise from the Northern Ireland situation, are not part of a joint effort with the Government of the Republic and do not have the same urgency about them. The Home Office is pulling a fast one. The Prime Minister said earlier that the Government "took the opportunity" of the recall of the House to bring in these provisions which the House has had before it previously. That phrase gives the game away. The Home Office has been successful in getting Bills into the legislative programme, but it has more in the cupboard and this is one of them. I am not unsympathetic to some of the things that the provisions are intended to do, but this is not a good vehicle with which to deal with them.
Lord Lloyd recommended in his report that the Government should introduce provisions relating to terrorist offences planned in Britain but committed overseas—conspiracy to carry out terrorist acts overseas—but he did not envisage wide powers that extended far beyond terrorism. For example, those powers could involve a group that planned an act of civil disobedience in another country that had no terrorist character to it whatever. An environmental group that decided to blockade the departure of a ship from a German or Polish port by bringing a lot of little boats into the way of that ship would be committing a criminal offence in that country and might be committing a criminal offence in this country, but that would not be an act of terrorism and it is not what was envisaged by Lord Lloyd; nor do I think it is what is envisaged by the Government. If there is a case for wider conspiracy powers, this is not the place to deal with that.
The provisions are in the Bill and we can vote against those clauses when we come to them, but there are some things that the Government could do. They could ensure that the conspiracy aspects of the Bill were limited to terrorism. We have tabled amendments which the Government could easily accept that would do precisely that. We have tabled other amendments to provide some further restriction to protect the legitimate opposition to repressive regimes. There may be some element of justified violence in opposition to other regimes—not terrorism. Even for Governments with which I disagree, I do not want groups in Britain planning bombs that would kill and maim hundreds of civilians even in Iraq, let alone anywhere else. I do not want terrorism planned in this country. However, the position is difficult with regard to countries where there is a civil war or organised military opposition to a repressive regime, and we must be much more careful about that. We have tabled amendments designed to address what the Attorney-General might consider in those circumstances.
Although the reasoned amendment includes some of our concerns, we do not support it because, by its nature, it is designed to defeat the entire Bill. For that reason, we cannot support it. We believe that parts of the Bill should go ahead, as I shall explain by way of conclusion.
First, the terrible event at Omagh and all the suffering that came from it brought about an even more overwhelming desire among people in all parts of Ireland


to proceed towards peace than had already been apparent in the votes that they cast in the referendum. There was already a clear democratic determination to seek to bring about peace. The revulsion from Omagh spread that desire deep into all communities in the north and the south. That calls for a response from Parliament. That is why it is right for Parliament to be recalled and for us to consider urgent measures.
Secondly, members of the republican splinter groups that continue to operate are very determined people indeed. They are highly trained and taught not to answer questions during interrogation. By their very decision to continue the violence, we know that they are extremely dedicated to their cause. The police and authorities need some limited extra armoury to deal with them. However, as the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said, we should not exaggerate what the limited provisions will achieve.
The Prime Minister did not help his case by claiming that the measures were draconian. They are not. In some respects, they are unusual in our system and they need particular safeguards, but I believe that their impact will be more limited than was suggested. They could help to secure prosecutions if a court can be satisfied on more than one ground that the accused are involved in that dreadful continuing violence.
The final reason why we think it is important to support the inclusion of at least some of the provisions is that we have argued for years that we should be working jointly with the Parliament of the Irish Republic, the Dail, on legislation that runs as far as possible in parallel, so that no community can say that the British state is imposing its will on Northern Ireland or that the legislation is sectarian.
The Governments of the two countries, who must take action in the circumstances, are trying to provide a legal framework within which the declared wishes of the Irish people for peace can be given effect. Those wishes could not have been more clearly expressed. They came from north and south, Protestant and Catholic. Across the communities of Northern Ireland, people have had enough of violence.
The view that I am presenting, which is shared by my right hon. and hon. Friends, is that elements of the Bill may help to give effect to that desire for peace. They are part of the wider process and the taking of a historic opportunity. For that reason, we are prepared to support them, despite our reservations. We hope that, before the night is over, we will have improved the Bill in a number of respects.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I beg to move,
That this House, whilst expressing heartfelt sympathy to the families and friends of those killed and injured in the terrorist bombings in Omagh, Nairobi, Dar es Salaam and Cape Town, and wishing to see the perpetrators of these evil deeds speedily brought to justice, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill of which hon Members have had sight, in draft for less than 24 hours, which is a contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the procedures for the newly established and welcome International Criminal Court; which gives power to senior police officers which past miscarriages of justice in England alone would not justify,

and fails to discriminate between nations abroad which are democratic and respect human and civil rights and those which are undemocratic, tyrannous, fail to respect democracy, human and civil rights, repress their populations and pay scant regard to the rights of women.
I shall read from a judgment, which states:
Just consider the course of events if this action is allowed to proceed to trial. If the six men fail it will mean much time and money will have been expended to no good purpose. If the six men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were erroneous.
The judgment continues:
This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further.
That was the judgment of Lord Justice Denning, then Master of the Rolls, before the Court of Appeal in November 1979 on the Birmingham Six. I quote that judgment because in that case the defence had the opportunity to examine the evidence, to examine the policemen and to go through all the statements that were made. Of course the defence did not know that the police were lying through their teeth, that the forensic evidence was doubtful and may also have been tampered with, and that the defendants had had the living daylights knocked out of them in order to obtain the confession.
Lord Denning said that that was an appalling vista. The entire establishment would collapse—the police, the justices, the prison service—yet in that case the police evidence was open to examination. What will happen under the Bill?
A policeman will go into the dock and say, "Mr. X is, in my belief, a member of one of the proscribed organisations." The defence will say, "My client denies that. Where is your evidence?" The policeman will say, "I cannot show you my evidence, because it is covered by a public interest immunity certificate. You cannot look at it. But that is my belief, and I know all about it. I have spent 50 years sniffing out terrorists. I have known them man and boy. I can tell a terrorist by the way that he will not look you straight in the eye. And he has an Irish accent"—or an Iraqi, Malaysian or Kurdish accent, or some other accent—"and I know them." The judge will look at the distinguished policeman, who has served years in the counter-terrorism squad, and say, "We must pay attention to what he says."
The accused will say, "I am saying nothing." On the basis of that, and on the basis of the policeman's evidence, which cannot be examined, that person can be convicted. He cannot be convicted on one of those grounds alone, but he can be convicted on both in conjunction. If that is the case, the word of a single police officer is to be taken. When the matter of the word of a policeman and the accused remaining silent was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), it was not contradicted.
Let us consider the safeguards. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I must say that, since it was announced that the word of a policeman alone would be the criterion, and that was greeted by an outcry, some progress has been made. The Bill now requires corroboration, weak though that may be. I concede that, but the weakness of that corroboration depends on the accused. The second rule that has been made so that the


Bill does not fall foul—on the face of it—of the European convention on human rights and the Murray case is that the suspect must have access to legal advice at some time before he is subject to a caution, a suggestion or a charge.
What happens if the solicitor says, "Say nothing—that is my advice to you"? The suspect says nothing and, coupled with the other matters that we have mentioned, is found guilty. What happens if the solicitor asks to see the evidence and the police say, "Sorry, it is subject to a public interest immunity certificate"—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) thinks that I am getting it wrong, so I will give way.

Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend is getting it wrong. I suggest that the solicitor would ask at the police station and then at the hearing what was the basis of the police officer's evidence. If the police officer says, "I am not prepared to tell you," how can the man answer questions? So the corroboration goes. If the case gets to the Crown court, the solicitor asks again what is the basis of the public interest immunity certificate. The judge in the case will have seen the evidence on which it relies. The judge will monitor the trial thereafter. If points come out that tend to show that what is said to be in that hidden evidence is not so, the question of immunity begins to move. Historically, immunity has moved in a number of cases, and prosecutions have cessated.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but that is not necessarily the case. It will depend precisely on what action the judge happens to take. It will not depend on the benefits of what my hon. Friend thinks will happen. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend—I understand the point that he makes—I do not think that what he says happens in real life. I base my opinion on Lord Justice Denning's saying what an appalling vista that would be.
The other point is access to a solicitor. We shall have—as we already have—two tiers of law. People in this country will have the benefit of a solicitor sitting beside them all the time and an audio transcription of the proceedings. As was said earlier, audio recording saves a lot of time and bother. There can be no contradiction. The recording is there. The suspect has said it.
However, in Northern Ireland that does not apply. A person may be informed of his right to access to a solicitor for advice, but the solicitor does not sit in on the interview. We do not have audio recording in Northern Ireland, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has pointed out, we could have it within a week if the RUC pulled its finger out, because the equipment has been available for a long time. If necessary, the RUC could take everyone down to Strand road police station for interview, where we know the information is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Equipment."] Sometimes it was where the information was as well.
My point is that an accused could be done for refusing to incriminate himself, and on the word of a policeman, subject to whatever caveats my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South may make, without the protection of proper legal advice during the interrogation. I put it to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that that will create real difficulties if one person is found to be wrongly accused or it is felt that a person has been treated unfairly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South suggested that as many as 300 people could be affected by the Bill. That is a lot of people among whom to start dissent. That is more likely to undermine the Good Friday agreement than the evil of the Omagh bombing. We know why the Omagh bombing was done. It singularly failed.
In providing access to a solicitor, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was trying to meet the problems raised by the European convention on human rights with regard to access to advice. People will recall that the judgment in the Murray case was that the length of the period of detention coupled with the absence of legal advice amounted to a denial of that person's human rights, and therefore a breach of the convention.
However, the court also drew attention to the increasing possibilities of compulsion as a result of the denial of the right to silence and the inferences that could be drawn from it. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend has met that point. Nor has he met the need to balance the rights of the accused and the rights of the prosecution. There is no equality between the two in such cases, so I believe that the Bill runs foul of the European convention. Certainly the United Nations Human Rights Committee drew attention to that matter.
When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary came to the House to speak about the international criminal court and the great step forward that had been made, the right to remain silent and to have no inferences drawn from that was specifically written into the convention. So we are in breach of all three conventions.

Mr. Dalyell: I am a signatory to my hon. Friend's amendment. One of the reasons is that, on the right of silence, such a lawyer's lawyer as Lord Ackner has expressed grave doubts about what we are doing here.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to that point.
I suggest that questions regarding the seizure of property will also cause problems under the European convention on human rights. By merely allowing a person to make his case before the judge when a decision is being made about a seizure of property and not giving him a fair and balanced opportunity of a trial in which to defend his position, the Government will fall foul of the European convention on human rights on the right to private property. Where people have different interests in a piece of property—land, a house or a car—one cannot just seize it under the European convention if that will punish another person. It would be wrong for that to happen without providing an opportunity for the third party to defend his position.
So we are in breach of the convention, because there is no right of cross-examination or right to examine the evidence. There is a lack of balance in the court and in the way in which seizure of property takes place. I suggest to my colleagues that, despite the statements that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made in moving the Second Reading, the provisions in the European convention are not met in the respects that I have outlined, and probably in many more.
However, I suggest that there is a way around that. If the Government are so confident, they can accept my amendments which would ensure that the European


convention on human rights was specifically taken into consideration whenever a decision was taken under this legislation. If they can accept that, we can move on.

Mr. Bermingham: I am sorry to interrupt a second time, this time not by request. In any court or jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, one point that any competent lawyer would put to the judge, on sequestration—as in drug trafficking cases—or in respect of the case generally, would be whether the European convention on human rights had been contravened, because we have just incorporated that convention into our law.

Mr. McNamara: We have not. People whom we are led to believe will be dealt with speedily will have the protection that was available in 1971, when they were given notice that they were going to be lifted and then disappeared from the jurisdiction or hid. If the Government are so certain, they can include their provision in the legislation. That is all I am arguing. It seems a reasonably sensible course to take.
Some people regard the provisions as internment by another name. One argument, which is not especially strong but which should at least be mentioned, is that membership is a continuing act. People can be sentenced for a specific offence—for having been involved in an incident—but once they are released, can they then be picked up for membership? Can the sentence that they have served be used as evidence of their continuing membership if they refuse to deny it? That argument leads some people to talk about the reintroduction of internment.
I shall deal briefly with the question of conspiracy. There seems to be great unhappiness in the House about how this has been dragged in—an unhappiness that I share. The question of conspiracy goes far beyond Omagh and anything connected with it. It has pre-empted Lord Lloyd's discussion documents and the document to be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that conspiracy will be a matter for review, but I am not sure whether he said it was going to be under the terms of the prevention of terrorism legislation or under the general consultative paper on conspiracy. However, I am certain that we should not be dealing with the matter in this way and at this time. That is why I have tabled an early-day motion to which reference has already been made.
No distinction is being made between the types of regime to which the Bill is going to apply. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that we already have an agreement with the United States, India and all the countries of the Council of Europe. That is absolutely right, and there is a specific reason for our having an agreement with those countries. Those countries observe the rule of law; they have standard procedures, an independent judiciary and presumptions of innocence. But what about the Emirates, Iraq and many other countries, where none of the proper standards apply? Despite that fact, we are saying that we are going to introduce legislation that would make it an offence for people to seek to use violence—not necessarily to kill—to overthrow a regime.
People talk about the African National Congress. Money was put in the defence and aid fund to help people accused of terrorism, and those people knew that the money was there to help them. It is a very fine line that we are drawing. What would happen if, for example, an organisation in this country planned a campaign of violence, but did not intend to kill anyone, with the aim of creating democratic structures in Saudi Arabia? That would be caught by the Bill, but the aim of those people would be democracy, elections, the rule of law and an accountable Government.
What if people wanted to campaign, quite properly, and perhaps went in for some violence against the Taliban regime and the objectionable way in which it treats women? Perhaps the only way to achieve change is to seek to subvert the Government, which would be an offence in this country and would cause those involved to be prosecution and prosecuted here. People do not have to be foreigners to be caught by this provision; British subjects could be caught. Not only could people be caught by the legislation, but if they planned to do something and then did not do it, they could be done for not doing it, according to the strange clause that mentions omitting to commit an offence.

Mr. Winnick: Is there not a sharp distinction to be made? People in Britain have every right to campaign against the Saudi Arabian regime for very good democratic reasons. Fortunately, what they do not have the right to do—I hope that they never will—is to conspire to commit terrorist acts. What about Kenya? My hon. Friend says that a distinction should be made between democracies and dictatorships. Even recognising all the blemishes in Kenya's legal system, would it have been right for people in Britain to plot to commit the outrages that caused the death of hundreds of people in Kenya recently?

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend's final comment makes my case. There is no distinction between regimes in this sort of legislation. How do we distinguish between a good terrorist and a bad terrorist?

Mr. Michael Mates: There is no such thing as a good terrorist.

Mr. McNamara: Let me put it this way: how do we distinguish between a good freedom fighter and a bad freedom fighter? My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will say that the answer lies in the strength, feeling and objectivity of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General. That is splendid, but let us now go back to the Saudi example.
Let us presume that the Saudis, like the Indians and others, are getting fed up with certain people in London; and if we want our big contracts renewed, and if we want to sell a few more Hawks, we have to deal with those people. That is not an idle threat—we should remember what the Malaysians did over the Pergau dam and other matters. This problem also goes to the root of many other issues.
What happens where there is a de facto Government but not a de jure Government?

Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall the campaign mounted by Conservative Members three years ago to


have Dr. al-Masari, a member of the Saudi Opposition, deported from this country because he was said to be jeopardising British commercial interests? There was an attempt to override the provisions of human rights legislation on the grounds of the commercial interests of organisations in this country. Is my hon. Friend aware that almost every country complains that people living in exile or those who form part of an opposition have either treasonable or terrorist intentions?

Mr. Winnick: What were his views on the racial minority?

Mr. McNamara: I hope that my hon. Friend is not referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North.

Mr. Winnick: He is the last person I would have been referring to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I remind hon. Members that sedentary interventions do no good and that the interventions are too long. Also, the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) should remember that the convention is to address the Chair. Although he does not mean to do so, he is facing in the wrong direction, but it is only a small matter.

Mr. McNamara: I have worshipped at many shrines, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am happy to worship at yours.

Mr. Winnick: I was referring not to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) or any other hon. Member, but to Dr. al-Masari, whom my hon. Friend mentioned and whose views of a certain racial minority were almost Nazi-like—perhaps the word "almost" is unnecessary.

Mr. McNamara: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but that does not detract from what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, or from my argument that, if one has good defence contracts, one is likely to be safe—that was my only point—no matter how tyrannous one's regime. Indeed, there is a real suspicion that those parts of the Bill have been introduced merely to give way to international pressures to defend Britain's commercial interests as a merchant of death.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a real problem in that those who come here and use the powers of free speech to advocate, in some cases, violent action against people who may or may not be of their political persuasion are frequently given much freedom, which they sometimes abuse? I am worried about the Bill and many of its aspects that we have been examining, but I hope that my hon. Friend understands the real problem posed by people who choose to live here but abuse the very traditions that they seek to espouse.

Mr. McNamara: Laws exist to deal with those possibilities, and should be used. I frequently send to the police offensive notices that are shoved through the doors of my constituents, suggesting that they should take some action—I expect that my hon. Friend does so, as well. For example, Nazi literature about Anne Frank has been

circulating recently to say that she never existed, and other such things that are all lies. I sought to have people prosecuted on the ground that they were inciting anti-Semitism. The legislation exists—whether it is implemented enough is another matter.
To sum up, everyone wants the people who were involved in Omagh to be brought to justice. The Bill will not result in anyone being charged with the terrible offence that took place there. It might bring the perpetrators to prison by virtue of their being members of a particular organisation, but it will not result in anyone being charged with that offence, and I want people to be charged with it and imprisoned.
The fact that the Bill certainly runs counter to the European convention, the United Nations convention and the International Criminal Court should not be thrown away lightly. Those defences exist for exactly this sort of situation. If everything were perfect, we would not need any of the conventions to protect people. We are disregarding what we have done.
The essential points on conspiracy are too widely drawn. If pressures were brought to bear, they could cover people who were properly agitating on different matters. The Bill could also lead to police harassment, which is why I suggest that the Attorney-General should have the power to initiate not only prosecutions but investigations, so that the police do not harass various exiled groups here as has been described, in the hope of picking up information, perhaps, but also in the hope of keeping them quiet for people who have commercial interests within their countries.
The Bill is dangerous, and we have been rushed into it without any proper thought. The Government have put together two conflicting ideas. During the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill in 1974, there were enormous pressures on the House. I know of them for two reasons. The first was my name and my descent. I was subject to many threats of violence—it has been a thousand times more difficult for hon. Members representing Northern Ireland, I admit.
Secondly, we were told that if we enacted that legislation, it would protect Irish people in this country who were subject to an enormous amount of abuse. Some hon. Members might not remember that, but I do. They were thrown out of factories, their windows were broken, they were threatened in the streets and thrown out of clubs. We were told that if we enacted the legislation, it would protect them. We were also told in the corridors outside the Chamber, "If you don't do this, the next step is capital punishment." Happily, that can never happen now.
Those were the pressures that we were put under when the House made those decisions in a short time. We were told that the legislation would only be necessary for six months, to get us over an unhappy patch, and that it would then disappear—it is now permanent and it has been in existence for 25 years. Annual reviews or no annual reviews, one thing we know is that we cannot amend a statutory instrument.
We are taking upon ourselves a power upon a power upon a power. People say that this Bill is proportionate. Internment was proportionate, and so was the prevention of terrorism and the emergency powers legislation. We were told that those measures were necessary to stop terrorism. Now, we are told that this measure is carefully targeted and surgical and will cover only the people who


are involved, exactly as we were told that the smart bombs dropped on Iraq were surgical and would take out only their targets, that they would get rid of the problem and that it would all be over in two or three days, instead of going on and on, as it has.
My fear is illustrated by that headline in The Observer, which said that tougher laws would get rid of the problem. I think that tougher laws will increase the opportunities for more horror and more tough laws. It is that more than anything that may undermine the Belfast agreement.

Mr. David Trimble: First, I welcome the fact that Parliament has been recalled to consider this legislation. Obviously, because of the recall and the time scale involved, drafting and consultation difficulties have arisen and hon. Members have made a number of comments about that in this and the previous debate. Those are points of substance. Obviously, that situation is undesirable. However, those criticisms should not be allowed to obscure the basic fact that the Government were right to recall Parliament. They had no choice in the matter once the Irish Government had decided to recall the Dail. From the point of view of containing public confidence, both in Northern Ireland and more generally, our Government could not be seen to be less active in responding to the situation than the Government of the Irish Republic.
The principal proposal in the Bill parallels that being considered in the Irish Parliament this evening. Again, our Government could not appear to be less concerned than the Government of the Irish Republic about the consequences of an appalling act of terrorism inside the United Kingdom. I underline that point because some hon. Members have focused too much on the difficulties arising from the short time scale, the drafting and all the rest and have left out of their thinking the important factor that the Government had a clear responsibility to respond to the atrocity and to demonstrate to the people of Northern Ireland and people elsewhere that their lives, interests and safety weighed in the mind of our Government as much as in that of the Government of the Irish Republic.
The Bill is in two parts, one of which has attracted quite a bit of criticism, and deals with conspiracy directed abroad. I shall make only a couple of comments about that part. Whatever arguments there may be about the technicalities and details, the basic principle to which those clauses are directed is right, because the conspiracy must be one to commit criminal acts elsewhere.
There may be difficulties about definitions, as has been mentioned, but let us take as an example the recent atrocity in east Africa—a car bomb with no warning in a busy city centre at a time of peace, with hundreds of civilians killed. I want to challenge hon. Members who criticise legislation in that sphere.
Is there any circumstance to justify such an act, whatever the regime may be?

Audrey Wise: No.

Mr. Trimble: Why, then, is there argument about passing legislation to make the planning of such acts from

here in the United Kingdom an offence, and to try to prevent such things from occurring? [Interruption.] The legislation does not seem to me to touch in any way on any legitimate political activity, because the provisions are directed against criminal acts.

Mr. Öpik: I agree about the right hon. Gentleman's examples involving terrorism, but surely the issue is that the legislation goes further, and may prevent other examples of what might be called civil disobedience, in circumstances in which we may naturally feel that it is justified to stand up against a dictatorship or other despotic regime. To me, that is the bigger concern—that the measures would not stop at terrorism.

Mr. Trimble: The answer to that is that we are dealing with offences that are also offences in United Kingdom law.
I have two other points to make about the clauses on conspiracy, although they do not have the same weight as my first point. First, I could not help but notice clause 6, which enables the Bill to amend the law of Northern Ireland as well. To those right hon. and hon. Members on both the Government and the Opposition Front Benches who over the years have told us that we had to operate by Order in Council, and that it was not possible to make provision in Bills of this Parliament to change the law of Northern Ireland at the same time, I say, "Please look at clause 6." Clause 6 does in this Bill what we have argued for years should be done as a matter of course, and it is being done without any difficulty on this occasion. So let it be done on every future occasion, and let us have no more primary legislation by means of unamendable instruments.
My final remark about the conspiracy aspect is that one good consequence has flowed from the inclusion of those clauses in the Bill: it has given us the pleasure of the Home Secretary's presence in the House introducing the legislation today. I may wish to make some critical comments about the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) later, but I echo his thanks to the Home Secretary for the way in which he presented the Bill, and for what he said in his speech.
Obviously, I mean to focus on the legislation as it relates primarily to Irish republican terrorism, and I shall examine the substance of it as it relates to proscribed organisations. It may be worth while to remind ourselves of the background to the Bill. Although the provision is being introduced into United Kingdom law for the first time, it is not a new provision. In its original form it was introduced into the law of the Irish Republic in the Offences Against the State Act 1972.
The provision was then introduced in the simple form of making admissible before hearings of the special criminal court in the Irish Republic the opinion of a senior police officer, and providing that that opinion alone would be sufficient to ground a conviction. There was no question of any corroboration. As originally introduced in the Irish Republic, the provision was that a senior police officer could go to the special criminal court and say, "In my opinion, Bloggs is a member of a proscribed organisation," and it would be open to the court to convict on that basis.
Hundreds of people were so convicted, purely on that basis, without any corroboration. The hon. Member for Hull, North is familiar with such matters because he has


close connections and contacts with the Irish Republic; he knows what happened. I would attach much more weight to his criticisms of the Bill tonight had I ever heard him criticise those provisions as they operated in the Irish Republic from 1972.
Any criticism that the hon. Gentleman has of the Bill before us applied in spades to the Offences Against the State Act 1972 and proceedings under it. That calls into question the approach that he has adopted to the present Bill.

Mr. McNamara: First, may I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I am legislating not for the Republic of Ireland but for the United Kingdom, and that I have a status here that I do not have there? Secondly, may I draw to his attention the fact that I have, of course, always supported the Irish Council for Civil Liberties in its objection to those provisions in the Offences Against the State Act?

Mr. Trimble: None the less, as I said, I would have given much more weight to the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Bill had I heard him express criticism of the Irish legislation in anything approaching the terms that he has used this evening.
I want to carry the story onwards with regard to the experience in the Republic of Ireland, where the legislation was effective from 1972 until about 1975 or 1976. During that period, several hundred people were imprisoned on membership charges. Then the republican movement adopted a different approach.
During the earlier period, the republican movement followed its traditional approach of refusing to recognise the court, so the special criminal court had only the opinion of the police officer. Nothing else was said—or at least, the only other thing that was said was the prisoner refusing to recognise the court. The court could then proceed to convict on that basis.
The republican movement then switched from a policy of refusing to recognise the court to one of contesting the actions. People would go into the witness box and say on oath, "No, I am not a member of that proscribed organisation." Nothing further was said.
Here we come to a crucial point that hon. Members on both sides of the House have missed in the context of the Bill before us. The Bill, like its counterpart in the Irish Republic, says that the opinion of a senior police officer is admissible as evidence. It says nothing about the weight of that evidence; it merely makes it admissible. It does nothing to change the basic rules that apply in criminal trials with regard to the presumption of innocence and the requirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Those rules still obtain both in the Irish Republic and here. So a bit of evidence is being introduced—the opinion of a senior police officer. Under the Bill, a little bit of corroboration may be introduced as well. Again, however, admissibility says nothing about weight. The police evidence will be matched by an assertion under oath by the accused, and other information may be introduced by the accused, too.
The court has to consider whether in those circumstances there is proof beyond reasonable doubt, or whether the presumption of innocence should be upheld. The actions of the Irish special criminal court in the 1970s were clear; once the statement of the senior police officer

was matched by the denial of membership by the accused, it could not be said that the accused was guilty of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, so the number of convictions rapidly dropped off.
That has remained the position in the Irish Republic until now. The Irish Government now recognise that their 1972 legislation has become ineffective, and, in the aftermath of Omagh, they made a decision. Indeed, they anticipated the problem and did some homework on it beforehand. They decided to see whether they could revive the legislation by introducing an element of corroboration.
I have grave doubts about whether that will be effective, because the problem that vitiated the original 1972 Act provisions will still be there. An element of corroboration will be introduced, but will that have sufficient force to outweigh the denial of membership by the accused? I have very grave doubts about that.
I have spoken to the Irish Government about the matter. They believe that the legislation will be effective. They have taken soundings. Although I do not know the nature of those soundings, they believe that it will be effective and that they will be able to secure convictions. I do not know the Irish judiciary and I have not spoken to anyone who practises in the Irish courts, so I am not in a position to gainsay the Irish Government's belief that they will be able to secure convictions on the basis of the legislation.
I very much doubt whether we shall secure any convictions in Northern Ireland on the basis of the Bill. I say that on the basis of what little knowledge I have of the judiciary in Northern Ireland and of the practising legal profession in Northern Ireland. I believe that it will be very difficult to obtain convictions. The mere fact that one is introducing these things or saying that they are admissible as evidence does not mean that there will be convictions.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I think that I may claim to have considerable experience of the judicial process and the behaviour of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, and that experience would confirm entirely the conclusions that the right hon. Gentleman has drawn.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that element of corroboration, which in this case may have a little more weight than the elements of corroboration that I was referring to in terms of the Bill. I have grave doubts, reinforced by the comment—

Rev. Martin Smyth: My right hon. Friend may not have been in the Chamber this afternoon when I raised this matter on a point of information. Is it not a fact that the pattern that was adopted by the IRA when Daithe O'Connell denied that he was chief of staff has consistently been followed through by leaders of the IRA in Northern Ireland during this last period? At the level of corroboration, if people who murdered Robert Dougan at Dunmurry were followed to the place where they were unloading their clothes, where the police caught them red-handed, and yet, because one witness withdrew, the prosecution did not proceed, is there any likelihood of corroboration being brought on the word of an officer in the circumstances that my right hon. Friend is referring to?

Mr. Trimble: My hon. Friend has graphically illustrated, using the example of the Dougan case,


the difficulties that exist with these matters. I am not sure that my recollection is correct on this, but I think I should correct him as to who was responsible for the change of policy by the republican movement in the mid-70s. I do not think it was David O'Connell; I think it was Martin McGuinness who made the change. He was the first person to recognise the court, in the 1970s, and that reflected the weight that he had in the republican movement even then.
Earlier, I said that I had my doubts about whether there would be many convictions—

Dr. Lynne Jones: It is not unimportant for us to express our horror at events at Omagh, but is the right hon. Gentleman saying that we have convened today merely to pass a Bill that will be ineffective in securing convictions for membership of proscribed organisations and, perhaps more important, will have absolutely no effect on the security forces' ability—we wish them well in their efforts—to secure convictions for the atrocity at Omagh?

Mr. Trimble: I said at the outset that I believed that it was right that the House be recalled and that it was right that it consider legislation parallel to that in the Irish Republic. I also mentioned the Irish Government's belief that the legislation would be effective within their jurisdiction—and, of course, most of the people responsible for the atrocity reside within their jurisdiction, so that suggests a possibility of effectiveness.
I expressed doubts about what I consider to be the likelihood of effectiveness in Northern Ireland, but of course I cannot predict the future any better than can anyone else in the Chamber. I am merely expressing a view as to that likelihood.
I have said that, in my view, judges in Northern Ireland, in Diplock courts, with their legal background, knowing the presumption of innocence and the need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, may not convict often in the circumstances that will pertain. One's concern about the circumstances where there might be convictions relates not to Northern Ireland, but to England.
All the criticisms that are made regarding the consequences of hasty legislation—I listened to the examples taken by critics of the Bill—relate to England. If there is a danger, English juries constitute the danger, because English juries have produced not all, but most, of the miscarriages of justice that have occurred. The example of the past 30 years shows that a person is in more danger of a miscarriage of justice from an English jury than from a Northern Ireland judge sitting alone in a Diplock court.

Mr. Corbett: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the fact that the seeds and roots of the great legion of miscarriages of justice that have arisen under the prevention of terrorism Act are the fact that police officers lied in the witness box.

Mr. Trimble: In Northern Ireland we have also had cases of police officers who have not acted with absolute probity, and we have had what I believe to be miscarriages of justice, from similar roots, but I must say

to the hon. Gentleman that I believe that the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland have a much better record of detecting that than juries, which tend, especially in circumstances like this, to react emotionally to the circumstances. That is the problem here. It is paradoxical, but if we are dealing with a terrorist situation there is a very strong argument for limiting the involvement of juries in those cases. That is a more general point, which I mention but shall not develop.
I have some reservations about the Bill's effectiveness, but I have expressed, and I emphasise, my belief that it was necessary to introduce it. I have no doubts about the present Irish Government's determination to respond to the current situation; I believe that they intend to respond effectively to it. They believe that the legislation that they are introducing in their jurisdiction will be effective. I hope that they are right, but, because I believe that they are genuine in their intention, and because they believe that it will be effective, I think it becomes necessary for us to act in concert with them. If we failed to introduce similar legislation in this place, we would undermine their efforts, and it would be a terrible situation for us to be in, especially after all the criticisms that we have made of Irish Governments over the years, when I and my hon. Friends have felt that previous Irish Governments have not been as effective as they could be. It would be terrible, having made those criticisms, if our own Government were not to act effectively enough.
That brings me to the point that was raised by several people regarding internment. I believe that the Government are making a serious mistake in not restoring it to the statute book. The power of internment is still on the Irish statute book. It is not being exercised at the moment, but the power is there, so that, should the need arise, it can be used immediately, rapidly, as a surprise, in the circumstances that it should be. As was pointed out earlier to the Prime Minister, internment will not work unless it is imposed as a matter of surprise, but one cannot do that unless it is on the statute book.
Internment is on the statute book in the Irish Republic, and the Irish Government have said that they have not ruled it out. They are threatening republican splinter groups that internment might be used. That threat, however, is undermined by the fact that the legislation is not on the statute book in the United Kingdom, and so cannot be used immediately. I heard the Prime Minister assert that it could. I hope that he is right. I have grave doubts about whether it is possible to introduce it as a matter of surprise, in advance of the legislation—to arrest people and then call the House to pass the legislation to give a legal basis for the arrests that have occurred.
That is a very dubious way of proceeding, but that is what the Prime Minister implied. I hope that he is right. I hope that, somewhere in Whitehall, the homework has been done and contingency plans exist. If that is the case, it would be a good idea for the Government to make that clear because, until it is made clear, the threat that is implicit in the Irish Government's position is being undermined by the failure to act in the United Kingdom.
I would very much prefer to see Government restoring the power to the statute book. Restoring the power does not mean that one exercises it, but it means that it is available.
During the Prime Minister's statement, I referred to the measures that the Chief Constable of the RUC has put before the Government. One of those is the restoration to


the statute book of the power to intern. The chief Constable has told the Government that the RUC would like to see the power to intern restored to the statute book. The Home Secretary said that the Home Office is considering the matters that the Chief Constable of the RUC has put before it; that is one of them. It should be acted on as soon as possible. I believe that the Chief Constable's other proposals should also be implemented.
Reference has been made to the interception of telephone conversations. There is no good reason for not putting that on the statute book. In view of the hour, I will not elaborate on the matter; but the arguments against interception are based on the belief in some quarters of Customs and Excise that English punters are so stupid that they do not realise that telephones are tapped. I do not think that belief is founded in fact. People forget that everyone must communicate. Even if people communicate in code, or in a roundabout way, they still have to communicate, and such communications could be used for the purpose of convictions. In other countries, intercept evidence is repeatedly seen to be used as the foundation for proceedings against organised criminals.
The Chief Constable mentioned other matters: changing the rules on disclosure of evidence, changing the law with regard to the admissibility of accomplice evidence—that is important in practice—and widening the scope of authorised investigators, under the emergency provisions Act, to deal with terrorist acts as well as terrorist financing. Those are all important measures, for which the RUC has been asking since at least 1993, and I think it is time that the Government responded more seriously.
I want to make some points about the groups against which the Bill is directed. Earlier, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) referred to what he described as a two-tier system of proscribed organisations. Whatever weight that may carry generally, I think it right for the legislation to be targeted—and the real target in this instance is the group that calls itself "the Real IRA", or "the IRA", which we know to be closely associated with the Continuity IRA.
As currently drafted, the Bill also covers two other groups, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Loyalist Volunteer Force. Both those organisations, however, have recently declared a ceasefire—and there is more reason to believe that declaration than there was to believe the hurried statement made by the Real IRA when it discovered the extent of popular outrage in the Dundalk region.
Following the INLA' s declaration of a ceasefire just over a week ago, it has—judging, at least, by what has appeared in the press—received assurances from the Government that, after a matter of months, it will be included in the prisoner release scheme. It would appear, then, that the Government are treating the ceasefire as substantial, and are moving towards recognition of it.
I hope that at least the same consideration will be given to the ceasefire declared by the Loyalist Volunteer Force. The declaration may have been made cynically, in the hope of securing releases, but the fact that a ceasefire has been declared, and the fact that—interestingly—the LVF has offered to decommission weapons should be explored urgently by Government. If one group—any group—started to decommission weapons, the impact on other groups would be substantial.
The Minister of State knows—I have made the point to him, and to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—that the caution displayed by the Northern Ireland Office is giving rise, in some quarters, to a suspicion that the Northern Ireland Office does not want the LVF to start decommissioning, because that might embarrass other groups. I have said that I hope that is not the case, and that I hope the Northern Ireland Office will act more vigorously in responding to the offers that have been made. The question of decommissioning obviously arises in this context. As was said earlier, I think that this is the important litmus test establishing whether the ceasefire is genuine. The genuineness of the ceasefire is made a condition in this legislation, as it was in the sentences Bill.
I welcome what Sinn Fein has said today in appointing a spokesman who will act as interlocutor, or go-between—call it what you will—with the decommissioning commission. I hope—as the commission hopes—that that person will embark on the task with the intention of bringing about actual decommissioning within a short period. Certainly, my friends in the Northern Ireland Assembly and I will not consider Sinn Fein's commitment to peaceful means to be genuine in the absence of some actual decommissioning.

Mr. Cash: What confidence has the right hon. Gentleman in the fact that Sinn Fein actually speaks for the IRA in this context? Does he share my concern about the lack of compatibility that the Bill appears to have with the proposals for early release, when it comes down to the question of proscribed organisations and whether the opinion of an officer has a bearing on that?

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in his interventions in trailing the amendment that he has tabled. As he knows, I am fairly sympathetic to it, and I hope that hon. Members will consider. it earnestly.
As for Sinn Fein and the IRA, as the Government have said repeatedly, they are inextricably linked. Some commentators have said of the gentleman nominated by Sinn Fein as its interlocutor with the decommissioning commission that no one could be better equipped to ensure that the IRA does decommission, although I leave it to others to decide what can be read into that.
My colleagues and I support the Bill in principle. We have expressed our doubts about its effectiveness, but we consider it necessary for the Government to act in the present circumstances. Because of our doubts about its effectiveness, however, we think that the Government should do more. We think that it should, as soon as possible, implement the Chief Constable's proposals—and, in the present circumstances, it is most important to restore the power of internment.
A mythology has grown up about that in recent years, which is quite inaccurate. It describes the failure of what is seen as a tool. Every time it has been used in the Republic, it has succeeded. Its most recent exercise in Northern Ireland was a failure, but there were specific reasons for that. Hon. Members should study those reasons in detail, and recognise that, in dealing with what is currently a comparatively small group, the tool has a much better chance of working effectively than it had in 1971. I consider it wrong to take the rigid and doctrinaire stance that some hon. Members have adopted. Certainly, I think it wrong for Ministers to say that they oppose


internment in the present circumstances. Whatever their private feelings may be, they should not oppose its use publicly, because in doing so they clearly undermine a threat that is posed by the Irish Government.
As I said at the outset, we in the United Kingdom cannot be seen to be less anxious and less ready to act than the Irish Government.

Mr. Clive Soley: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). When he became leader of the largest Unionist party in Northern Ireland, I expressed severe doubts about whether he could offer the quality of leadership that the Unionist people were crying out for. In recent months—indeed, for longer—he has proved me wrong by his actions and words, and I am delighted to say so publicly. The Unionists are getting the leadership that they need, and I am delighted by that.
My first point concerns the problems of emergency legislation. When we recall the House of Commons to deal with such legislation—as the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) made clear—we have to be particularly cautious. We have the lesson of the Birmingham pub bombing, and any atrocity such as Birmingham or Omagh should put us on our guard. The Government are right to try to get their business through in the next two days—not least because I think that if we had asked the House to sit for a further two days, we would not have secured agreement anyway. However, the House does not have in place the checks and balances necessary to examine legislation such as this.
Although this is not the appropriate time to outline the details, the Modernisation Committee—of which I am a member—is looking at the matter. I hope that we will recommend that a Committee that examines a Bill can continue in existence after a Bill becomes law to see how it is working, and I hope that such a recommendation will be accepted by the House in the near future. That proposal was dreamt up partly as a result of the disaster of the Child Support Agency. However, we need to take a step further. Every time the House meets for an emergency debate and passes legislation, we should establish a Committee to look at the way in which the legislation works over time.
Select Committees can do that to some degree, but when an Act of Parliament crosses departmental boundaries—as this Bill does—it would be better to set up an operation to see how it works over time. I would be happy to make that proposal to the Modernisation Committee. I hope that some of my Committee colleagues, such as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), would support that. His concerns about the way in which we deal with such legislation are right. As one or two of my hon. Friends have said, when we have emergency legislation, it is all too easy to get it wrong.
A number of people said to me when they saw the Bill that it was the prevention of terrorism Act, old-style, back in drag. It is not. I was a strong and persistent opponent of the prevention of terrorism Act for many years, and it was only in recent years that I ceased to vote against it.

There were two primary reasons for that. The first was that the offences against civil liberties and the reputation of this country as a democracy operating under the rule of law were devastatingly serious in one particular respect—exclusion orders. However they were dressed up, those orders were a form of internal exile—the first time that had been used in the United Kingdom since the days of Henry VIII. That was one of the reasons why the Act was so atrocious, and why I was so pleased when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary ceased to use its powers.
The other big failure of the prevention of terrorism Act was that it was not used as a prevention of terrorism Act in the specific sense. It should really have been called the collection of information Act. The measure was used to round up hundreds of people—several thousand people in some years—question them, often for several days, and release them without charge. On very few occasions throughout the years were more than 5 per cent. of those arrested and detained under the Act charged with any offence. Of that 5 per cent., a smaller percentage were charged with offences relating to terrorism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, the Act was a recruiting sergeant major for the Provisional IRA and, to a lesser extent, for other paramilitary groups operating out of Northern Ireland. For that reason, I was pleased to see the Act go.
Nor is the new Bill a form of internment. Unlike the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and one or two others, I do not believe that internment should be put back on the statute book. It is one thing for the Irish Government to consider internment in Ireland, but it is altogether another thing—for historical reasons, of which we are all aware—for the British Government to become involved in a policy of internment. That is not just because we got it so badly wrong, or because one of the biggest mistakes we ever made was to allow the British Army to be under the direction of what was then a biased and skewed Northern Ireland Executive. It is because the Act was inevitably going to involve British troops in exercising internment, and the history and image of that in Ireland were unacceptable.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's comments and the problems of the British Government unilaterally introducing internment, but is there not a problem with the Bill? What it purports to do is to put criminal sanctions on a test that is not very dissimilar to the test for interning people. To get away from calling a spade a spade—that, in fact, the criminal justice system cannot deal with certain kinds of terrorism—are we not making another and extremely dangerous error in bending the rules of the criminal justice system to convict people who do not fit it?

Mr. Soley: There is clearly a danger of that, but let me try to deal with that as I continue my remarks. I hope to deal with it to some extent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South has a point when he says that anyone who is picked up under the Bill should be taken to one of the police stations that operate the recording procedure; one of them certainly does. He is a bit more optimistic than I am about these things. He thinks that a lot of the criticism of audio recording will melt like snow on a volcano.
I suspect that some of us might be more resistant to the flames of a volcano than others. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that, if that were done, it would be a significant step in the right direction. I hope that the Government will examine that while we debate this Bill.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: I will, but I want to be brief because I am conscious of the time.

Mr. McCartney: The suggestion by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that audio equipment would be the answer to everyone's difficulty ignores the fact that the real opinion that is given by the superintendent will not necessarily be based—in fact, it frequently will not be based—on any information given in interview.

Mr. Soley: That may be so, but I do not think that we are looking for perfection. In a perfect world, we would not have this Bill in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South was identifying an additional safeguard, and it is one that the RUC will have to bring in anyway. The suggestion is that we simply ensure that it applies to all these cases.
The other fundamental difference between the Bill and the PTA is that the Bill is sharply focused. By anyone's standards, the number of people involved is probably not much more than 20 or 30 in the north of Ireland—it may be less than that—so the Bill will not operate like the PTA, which swept people up in its net, questioned them and let them go.
There is no reason why the Bill should not provide for audio recording and I hope that it will do so. No doubt we will be told whether it is possible, but I hope that it is.
The other big difference from the past is the force of the vote in the referendums in the north and south of the island of Ireland. It has radically and completely changed the nature of the debate because, as the Real IRA discovered, it removed any legitimacy from what terrorists were doing. It took away a lot of water in which the fish of terrorism, if I may revert to that old saying, were able to swim.
That vote changed the mood in Ireland, north and south. We must respond to that. We must ensure that the Bill is focused. Although I do not like it and would not, in an ideal world, have it, in the context of Omagh it is necessary to do something of this nature.

Ms Diane Abbott: I think that the entire House accepts that the vote on the Good Friday agreement transformed the debate on Northern Ireland, but that vote still does not make it right that people can be interned on the word of a senior police officer. The change in the political debate does not make the civil liberty infringements in the Bill right.

Mr. Soley: With respect, if my hon. Friend had been here for most of the debate, she would not have made that intervention. That point has been addressed a number of times. It is not as she thinks it is. Perhaps she needs to read the debate and she will understand why.
There is another important issue. Since 1981, the core of the Labour party's policy to achieve change in Northern Ireland has been that the British and Irish Governments should act together. To be fair, such action was first taken by Lord Prior. He was the first to begin to achieve a coherent policy between Britain and Ireland. We knew that to ask the Unionists or the republicans to come out of their trenches was almost impossible unless the two Governments held the ring, as it were, and led the way forward. Since Lord Prior developed that policy, which was continued by the previous Prime Minister and has been magnificently carried forward by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State, the situation has been transformed. It is the core of what we are trying to do. If the Irish Government judge that action is needed to deal with the threat of a repeat of what happened at Omagh—it is important to remember that two other large bombs planted in city centres by the Real IRA could easily have gone off and killed as many people as were killed at Omagh—we have to take that seriously. We have to listen and act in concert with the Irish Government when possible, not just to rubber-stamp what they do, but to recognise that they have for many years borne the brunt of the problem, even though we have not always given them credit for having done so. The desire for common consent between Britain and Ireland should drive us together.
My final point relates to the second part of the Bill. As I have said a couple of times, its provisions cause more anxiety than those relating to Northern Ireland. The main reason for that is the Nelson Mandela question. I was satisfied some time ago by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's assurance that we could not have acted against Nelson Mandela if such a provision had been in force, because my right hon. Friend has removed any reference to incitement. People can campaign or argue—they can even praise the bombing in Kenya and Tanzania, as a couple of representatives of a particular Islamic group did on television recently. No action would follow from that. Given some of the other things that those people said, one could argue that action should be taken against them under the Race Relations Act 1976, but that is another matter. The point is that they could not be prosecuted in this country for what they said about the bombing. Campaigning, speaking, raising money or distributing leaflets would not be an offence. That is important.
The Home Secretary is aware of my anxieties. The person who says, "Murder Saddam Hussein," would probably by signed up by MI6 and offered the facilities to carry it out. I joke, but only slightly. In the case of some dictators, such as Adolf Hitler, we know—

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Soley: I am reluctant to give way again, but I shall do so once more.

Mr. Corbyn: Like the rest of us, my hon. Friend has read the Bill. Is he aware of the references in clauses 5, 6 and 7 to decisions under law made in other countries—countries outside the Council of Europe over which we have no control? Such countries may brand people as


terrorists on the basis of no evidence. Such people could subsequently face prosecution in this country for legitimately pursuing democratic ends in their country.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is wrong. Two things are needed: there needs to be an offence in the country concerned; and that act needs to be an offence here. If it is not an offence here, there can be no prosecution. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Conspiring."] The Minister who sums up the debate will no doubt make the point, but let me answer. Conspiring to kill someone here is an offence. It would also inevitably be an offence in another country. The difficulty comes when we are dealing not with an obviously dictatorial regime, such as those of Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler, but with a more shadowy, in-between case, such as Saudi Arabia, where we are unhappy about civil liberties. Nobody will be returned to such a country.
The issue is whether a person should be prosecuted in a country with a poor human rights record. The Home Secretary's answer is that the Attorney- General would have to make the political decision on whether to do so. I should like an additional safeguard requiring the Attorney-General to take account of the human rights situation in that country. That would also give a power of judicial review in the event of an Attorney-General feeling that he or she must act against an individual in cases where many would argue that, although the act involved was a criminal offence both here and in the other country, it was one that, in the circumstances of that country, could be understood. That is the difficult area that we are trying to root out.
We are not simply concerned about not sending people back, because that would not be done under the Bill in any case. The legislation would not apply in cases where an action was an offence in a dictatorial country, but not here; the action has to be an offence here as well.

Mrs. Fyfe: I should like my hon. Friend to consider a case with which everyone here must be familiar, even though it goes back to the second world war. We live in a democracy, so it is, of course, an offence to blow up bridges in this country for political ends. However, during the second world war, when brave citizens of France blew up bridges in the effort to defeat the Germans, we not only supported them, but funded them. Would not such action fall foul of the Bill?

Mr. Soley: With respect, I have already answered that question. Let me give a more up-to-date and perhaps better example than the one that my hon. Friend raises to demonstrate why that would not work. The example is one of someone being prosecuted in this country for taking action in the areas of Palestine occupied by Israel. The reason why it would not be possible to do that is that, in the United Nations' view, the area is occupied; in other words, it is the second world war situation that my hon. Friend describes brought up to date.
My final point, and it is a crucial one, which it will not be possible to address today, is that we are developing a global approach to deal with terrorism. It is profoundly difficult to get that approach right, because terrorism challenges both democracies and autocracies. The name of the game is to try to find a way of dealing with

terrorism that is directed at countries that are capable of change in a democratically legitimate way. A matter that we must consider in the longer term, and one of the things for which I commend the Government, is their signing up to the International Criminal Court, which probably offers the long-term solution to dealing with terrorism.
If we can deal with the problem on an international basis and, in the not-too-distant future, arrive at an international approach to terrorism—perhaps a convention, containing the safeguards of free trials, a proper legal system and democratic procedure—we shall have achieved something positive. The danger is that, because we have all been brought up in a world that is polarised and stuck in the past, we are trying to legislate on the basis of those past experiences. The world has changed dramatically and will continue to do so. We should look for an international structure if we are to tackle the problem in the right way in future.

Mr. Michael Mates: I have experienced a unique sense of deja vu as I have sat listening to the debate, because it was from this very seat 24 years ago that I made my maiden speech during proceedings on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, which was introduced in 1974 by the noble Lord Jenkins as a result of the Birmingham and Guildford bombs. It was difficult to take the legislation through very quickly—although not as difficult as today, because the House was actually sitting at that time—but it was right then and it is right now. I fully agree with those hon. Members who have said that it is necessary that we take the measures contained in the Bill.
I am sorry to say that I do not go along with the civil liberty arguments that have been made, because the greatest civil liberty of all is the liberty to live one's life in peace, unaffected by terrorism and terrorist bombs. I do not propose to go into the many contributions from Labour Members, save to answer one question posed by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He asked: what is the difference between a good terrorist and a bad terrorist? There is a perfectly simple answer: there is no such thing as a good terrorist. All terrorism is to be deplored, and all conceivable measures must be taken in a democracy to prevent it from occurring.

Mr. Benn: The Central Intelligence Agency funded Osama bin Laden to engage in terrorist activity in Afghanistan against the Russian army. I was totally opposed to the Russian intervention. Was that terrorism to be denounced; if so, why did the Americans finance it and build the headquarters for it that they bombed a few days ago?

Mr. Mates: I hope that I made it clear that all terrorism should be denounced. There is no excuse for any terrorism whatever, and we should do all that we can to prevent it.
I may have a perspective on internment that is unusual in the House, in that I am totally opposed to it. I was in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s when internment was introduced, and I saw its consequences. As someone said, it was the best recruiting sergeant that the IRA ever had. I agree completely, however, with what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said: although it


was wrong then, it is nevertheless part of the armoury to combat terrorism. I cannot foresee any circumstances in which I would want to introduce it—indeed, the issue came up from time to time while I was in Northern Ireland, during especially bad phases of violence, and I was always against it because I thought that it would do more harm than good—but that does not mean that we should remove the option altogether.
I sincerely hope that the Government will reconsider, with a view not to introducing internment, because there is clearly no case for it at present, but to having it available. The one development over the past four or five years that has been good and constructive is that the British and Irish Governments are becoming ever more at one in the measures that they have taken in the fight against terrorism. In the face of that growing convergence, the Government threw out the ability to introduce internment four or five short months ago. The Irish did not do the same, and that is significant.
There is no use having internment on only one side of the border: that is an absolutely empty gesture. One argument that was made in the 1970s and 1980s was that it would have been pointless for us to consider introducing internment in Northern Ireland because it was perfectly clear that, in the prevailing political climate, the Republic would never do so, so we would simply have been repeating the mistakes of the early 1970s.
To be effective, internment has to be total on both sides. It has to be done as a precise, surgical, surprise operation; otherwise, the people whom we seek to inter are not there and we are bolting the door after the horses have left. The Prime Minister was wrong today—or wrongly advised—when he said that it was a matter of judgment. The judgment concerns whether we have the ability to introduce internment in circumstances that we cannot foresee, but the fact is that, if we do not have that ability in our law, we cannot do it—unless the Government are suggesting that they can round up everybody and then come to the House to seek retrospective legislation for an action that would otherwise not be legal.
I cannot understand why the Government are deliberately choosing not to have that weapon in their armoury. I do not believe that we would use it now—I would not have considered using it after Omagh, but what if we have four, five or six more Omaghs and it becomes clear that a small nucleus of people is determined to continue the violence and that, as now, there is no public support for those people? However, that weapon would be available if circumstances arose under which it should be considered.
One reason for the failure of internment was the sympathy of the whole nationalist community for those who were interned. Many were interned wrongly and there was great public sympathy for their cause. As of today, there is no sympathy whatever for the cause of the Real IRA, or other such splinter groups, whatever they call themselves. There is simply disgust at and abhorrence for what they are doing.
If it became a question of judgment on whether to introduce internment, the decision would not be taken in the same scene. We would be dealing with a small number of people and it might be the right action to take, except

that we cannot now take it. That is a silly policy and, in the light of what I have said, I hope that the Government will look at the matter again.

Mr. White: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the introduction of legislation for internment would alter the balance about which he speaks? There is no support for the terrorist in any of the communities in Northern Ireland, but the mere fact of introducing such legislation would alter the equation.

Mr. Mates: That is again a matter of judgment. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman because, if the Government had not repealed the legislation earlier in the year, its reintroduction would not be an issue. That does not mean that a Government cannot admit that they have done something wrong and decide to put it right. I am not advocating the introduction of internment; I am saying that it is one of the weapons that we should have. The Government's true position came out in the Prime Minister's final answer, and that may have been innocently echoed by the hon. Gentleman who said that internment legislation would send the wrong message to the terrorists. I am afraid that that begs another question: what is the right message?

Mr. White: My point was that the wrong message would be sent to the republican community and not necessarily to the terrorists.

Mr. Mates: Since Good Friday, we have been in the business of sending messages; the Government need to be careful, because the problem is that all the messages are going one way. There have been firm assurances about decommissioning. Has anything been handed in—one gun or other weapon, one piece of explosive? The quid pro quo for decommissioning is the release of prisoners. Some of the worst prisoners have been rushed out of Irish gaols, although such people have not yet been released from ours. Lord Mountbatten's murderer is free. Was there any quid pro quo for that? How about 10 tonnes of Semtex in exchange for the murderer of Lord Mountbatten? No, because it is said that that would send the wrong message.
I offer a word of caution on this matter. Do the Government intend to continue in that way without bringing people up to the mark to deliver what they have promised? If they do, we shall increasingly alienate the decent majority in Northern Ireland and some people in this country who wonder why all the traffic at the moment is one way. I hope that the Government have it in mind to issue some timetables and put Sinn Fein-IRA feet to the fire over the matter. I hope that, before there are mass releases of prisoners from Northern Ireland gaols, there will be some concrete signs and not just good intentions.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann welcomed the appointment of Mr. Martin McGuinness to the body that will look into decommissioning. Mr. McGuinness will have to change his tune because, only six short months ago, he said that not one bullet would the IRA ever give in. That was his position, but now he is part of the organisation that is looking into decommissioning. If that is a road to Damascus conversion, I welcome it.

Dr. Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman spoke about sending messages. Does he agree that the Good Friday agreement was a breakthrough and that it gives real hope


for peace in Northern Ireland? Does he further agree that, if the Government had not abolished internment, that agreement would not have been reached?

Mr. Mates: The hon. Lady must ask the Government about that. I do not know whether that was another of the messages that were sent at the time. If it was, it was the wrong message. Of course I do not question the fact that the Good Friday agreement was good, but at the moment the only people who are keeping to the agreement are on this side. Sinn Fein-IRA have not done any of the things that they have undertaken to do. Has there been any decommissioning or any move towards it? Has anything been handed in? Has there been any reduction in punishment beatings or knee cappings? Those things are, and must be, part and parcel of bringing peace. But Sinn Fein-IRA do not call that violence; they call it community policing.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mates: I have already given way to the hon. Lady and I want to be brief.
I commend the Government on introducing the Bill, which I shall support, but I hope that they are listening. There is a limit to what they can expect to be given while we get nothing back in return. So far, if I may put it this way, the good guys have had precious little back for what we have given. I hope that, before the prisoners are released from Northern Ireland gaols, we shall demand and see concrete signs of the good intentions that Sinn Fein-IRA say that they have being put into practice so that the sort of weapons that set off the Omagh bomb—not the fertiliser, but the detonator, the primer and possibly a small amount of Semtex—are no longer available to those people to cause destruction. If we go on accepting their good faith, we may wreck rather than cement the Good Friday agreement.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I propose to be brief, as I have already made many of my points by way of intervention.
When I first heard about the proposal to recall the House and to discuss these two matters, my hackles went up, the hairs rose on the back of my neck and all the defensive mechanisms in me as a libertarian came to the fore. As time went by, I resisted the temptation of invitations from television and messages in the press and, for once, I sat down, waited, watched and listened. In doing so, I learned something and many of my prejudices evaporated.
Yet more prejudices have gone with the passage of time. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) debated whether the proposed clause would work with frankness and honesty, and I pay him the great compliment of saying that he got it just about right.
Internment has been replaced by a method of prosecution for membership of a list of proscribed organisations. Those proscribed organisations will disappear with time, just as many of their forebears have gone. With them disappears the necessity for this part of the Bill. I seek an assurance on that from the Home

Secretary. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman nods. Once there are no proscribed organisations, there will be no need for this part of the Bill and it will go into the past.
When I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) at his invitation, I sought to show what happens when public interest immunity matters are raised. Let us consider what happens in real life in a police station. I speak with some 30 years' practice in the law. I declare my interest as a practising barrister who has been involved and is involved in such cases day by day.
A solicitor goes into the police station. Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1996, which the Labour party supported in opposition, the first thing that the officer has to do is give the evidence. The solicitor asks on what evidence a charge is based. The officer no doubt says that it is intelligence which he is not prepared to disclose. Then the advice is given to the client that he should, of course, answer the question. It was suggested that the solicitor would say that he should not answer the question. That would be the most stupid advice in history. It would be stupid, dishonest and dishonourable to the defendant. If the defendant is saying that he is not a member, he should say it loudly and clearly.
If the police decide to make a charge, the case then goes to court. Assuming that the Home Secretary once again gives in to my simple suggestion that solicitors be allowed to attend the interview and, so that there is no argument about it, the interview is tape-recorded—I see no reason why it should not be—there will be no argument. The court—it will be a court with a jury—will hear what was said. The jury will then decide whether that interview amounts to corroboration. If it does not, we know from the Bill that there will be no case to answer at the close of the prosecution case because the word of a single officer is not enough to secure conviction.
If, however, the officer says that the information is confidential and subject to public interest immunity, the judge will have heard the basis for that. That is how the system works. If matters arise during the trial that show that that is not so and that there is no basis for what was said, the judge will intervene. That is his continuing duty in a criminal trial in this land. There is a slight difficulty in the Diplock courts, where the judge is both judge and jury.
The judge knows what sensitive information is. If it is merely informant tittle-tattle, as is often the case, the judge will give it the weight that it deserves. If it derives from observation, interception or tapping, the matter will be left to the jury, who will not know the basis of the assertion by the police officer. It will be a matter for the jury to decide, on the evidence that they have heard, whether they are sure beyond reasonable doubt that that man or that lady is guilty.
That is a pretty good alternative to internment. The person knows that he has had a fair trial. The issue has been aired in public and a jury has decided—not a police officer, but a jury.

Mr. Corbyn: There is great concern, especially among Labour Members, at the suggestion, especially by Ulster Unionists and some Conservative Members, that internment should be reintroduced. Does my hon. Friend think that the Bill would give power to the RUC to take people into custody and hold them for a very long time


on remand, which would in effect be a form of internment, knowing full well that the chances of getting a prosecution were extremely limited?

Mr. Bermingham: No. Under the prevention of terrorism Act, the maximum holding time is seven days.

Mr. Corbyn: Until charge.

Mr. Bermingham: Until charge. People cannot be held week after week; they must be charged. If my hon. Friend does not take my word for it, he should ask the Attorney-General, who has been in the game longer than I.

Dr. Godman: The game?

Mr. Bermingham: I thought that the time had come for a little levity in the proceedings.
There comes a time when a suspect must be charged or released. If he is charged, the case must go before a court and it is then subject to investigation by the court. There is the opportunity to apply for bail, which will be granted on the basis of the strength of the evidence and other matters. My hon. Friend asks whether the Bill proposes interment by another name, but that is not so: it is an alternative to internment. A specific allegation must be made against the defendant. He cannot simply be locked up, given no rights and let go at the end of an indefinite period. That is what brought the hatred and horror in Ireland. That is the point that I tried to make earlier, but I did not get much approval from the Ulster Unionists.
If a person is to be incarcerated, he has the right to know why. That is why the Murray case was decided as it was. If the Home Secretary wants to keep clear of the European convention on human rights and all the other jurisdictions, all that he needs to do is to put in the Bill the right to a solicitor, and allow the solicitor to remain present and the proceedings to be tape-recorded. The prisoner's rights will then be protected and there will be no further trouble in that respect.

Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, when he speaks of a suspect in a police station being accompanied by a lawyer, he is referring to an English police station? A suspect in a Scottish police station does not have the right to be accompanied by a lawyer during the investigation.

Mr. Bermingham: That is tragic. The law in Scotland should be amended. The English law is correct in that respect. I am asking the Home Secretary to extend it to Northern Ireland, so that the law is equal in every part of the country for all crimes, terrorist or non-terrorist. I do not like the word "terrorist". A crime is a crime. If I blow someone up, it does not matter whether it is for his political beliefs or because I want to blow up his property. I am still a criminal and he has still been blown up. People should remember that. Crime is crime, and it ought to be dealt with.
My attempts to understand clause 5 began as a nightmare. Well, I took the advice. I did what most good lawyers do. I went and talked to my friends. One takes one's piece of paper with one and says, "Hey, Jim," or "Hey, Jane, what does this mean?" I spent the whole of

last night—not literally—walking around various places in the Temple. I will not report where, or what the beverages were, but I gathered from many senior colleagues their interpretation of clause 5. They were not very polite until we began to understand the language. Then it became obvious what clause 5 was all about. It is, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier today, a means of bringing into effect an anomaly that already exists.
When previous attempts were made in various private Members' Bills to prosecute people abroad, I was worried about the incitement provisions. The Bill does not include incitement. It avoids that pitfall. It says in simple language that, if something is a crime in England and a crime in, for example, Patagonia, the legislation applies. But if it is not a crime in England or not a crime in Patagonia, the legislation does not apply. That already happens, for example, in drugs cases. Again, I declare my interest. I have been involved in such cases. In one case, drilling pipes in Spain were found to be full of cannabis, but the conspiracy originated in the United Kingdom. My client happened to be somewhere near. He was acquitted, I do not know how, by an English jury. In another case, a lot of bootlegging was going on. If someone is bootlegging in Spain, France or Belgium, he can be tried in the United Kingdom on the conspiracy count because he conspires to commit a crime in the European area.
Incidentally, the crime has to be one that carries a sentence of more than two years in prison. Petty matters are not covered. I hope that when we consider the matter—perhaps it should be considered again in some detail—we will bear it in mind that, in the European context, there is a limitation to crimes subject to a two-year prison sentence. The crime has to carry a sentence of more than two years, so we do not get bogged down with petty crimes.
As I understand it, the Bill deals with crimes that are crimes in this country and in other countries. I was thinking earlier today what a farce it was that we could prosecute someone in England for conspiring to import from Spain £100 million-worth of cannabis, as in the case to which I referred, but we are stuck if we want to try someone for conspiring to import £200 million-worth of cocaine from Colombia. That is lunacy. This attempt by the Government to recover their position is a worthwhile attempt which needs support.
I concede immediately that the drafting of clause 5 leaves much to be desired. For example, one proposed subsection refers to a judge of the Crown court. The cases with which we are dealing are, in my respectful submission, so serious that, under proposed subsection (10), which says:
In the Crown court the question whether the second condition is satisfied shall be decided by the judge alone",
the judge has to decide not only what is or is not a crime in this or that country but in certain cases whether the Government of a country is de jure or de facto. Take Burma as a classic example. Is the junta the Government of that country or are the democratic persons elected some years ago the Government? Those are the questions which will have to be considered. Therefore, I suggest that clause 5 needs further amendment and consideration. I hope that, even though we may pass the Bill into law in the next few days, it will be brought back to the House very soon. I seek again from the Home Secretary an


assurance that it will be brought back soon so that it can be considered in the light of further discussions and advice, and amended accordingly.
Clause 5 is horrendous. It is designed to deal with criminal conspiracies when the country in which the crime is intended to be committed and that in which it is thought up are different. I have tried to be as brief as possible. I have some reservations. I promised the Attorney-General that I would put formally on the record my view that, while he is the Attorney-General, I am not too worried about bad cases getting into court. However, I will be worried in the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Distant future"] The distant future, I hope. I hope that the matter can be reconsidered later and that the technicalities and other matters can be tidied up in a way that makes plain what we seek to do.
For once, I wish a Bill on civil liberties a fair passage.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There seems to be among some hon. Members a strong conviction that, after Good Friday, everything changed in Northern Ireland. They should look at what we have been through since Good Friday. The people of Northern Ireland have a right to question the strong and fierce language used against them when they say anything that does not side with, condone or support the Good Friday agreement.
Since Good Friday, 37 people have been murdered by the terrorists. Since Good Friday, every paramilitary group supposed to be on ceasefire has breached the ceasefire and the terms of the Mitchell principles of non-violence, so much so that two groups had to be expelled from the talks because of their misbehaviour.
Six hundred and ninety-one people have been injured as a result of paramilitary-inspired violence. There have been 75 separate bombing incidents that include the atrocity at Omagh, Banbridge and Moira, as well as a growing list of largely unreported fire bombs and incendiary devices, many of which have destroyed businesses. There have been six car bombs; there have been 89 separate punishment shootings carried out by all the paramilitary groups; there have been 55 serious assaults carried out by paramilitary groups; and more persons are detained in custody this year than during the mid-1970s when the troubles were at their height. We might say, "Some peace process!"
The Government claim to be doing everything possible to counter those violent acts, but there is little evidence to prove the Government's claims. The Government are not tough on terrorism or the causes of terrorism. The quarterly report on the working of the prevention of terrorism Act indicates a severe dropping off in activity by the security forces to prevent terror. From Good Friday to July, the Government's own figures show that the police and courts failed to charge or convict one person for one single act of terror, for withholding information or for assisting the flow of terrorist funds. In the same period, only one person was charged under section 9 of the Act. That is a record not of success, but of failure; and there is little prospect of the record being improved, given the Government's lack of will to tackle the terrorists.
The concession process has seriously compromised the Prime Minister's ability to deal with terrorists. The people of Ulster are asking how long the concessions to the

terrorists will go on. We heard the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) say that there was no such thing as a good terrorist. I agree with that, but there is a difference in the Acts that we are producing. One set of terrorists is put on one side and one set is put on the other. Someone said, "Aye, but they had declared a ceasefire." It is some ceasefire when they are still carrying out those terrible acts of terror.
That record makes the people of Ulster afraid of what will happen in the days ahead. The House must face up to decommissioning. Once again, we have heard talk today about decommissioning and statements about what was said in the agreement. To hear some hon. Members, one would think that the agreement was strong on decommissioning. What does it say? It states:
All the participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use"—
mark these words—
any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.
Mark those words:
to use any influence they may have",
but not to use all their influence and not to take any steps. So, nothing in the agreement says that participants must decommission within two years.
As long as arms and explosives are available, we will have repeats of Omagh. I am sad when I hear politicians saying, "Surely this is the last time. It will never be repeated." They said that about Moira, after that they said it about Banbridge and after that, about Omagh. God alone knows where the next strike will come.
The House needs a baptism of reality, and it needs to face up to what is really happening in our troubled Province at present. On the Prime Minister's most recent visit, my colleagues and I told him that he had the opportunity at that juncture to deal with the matter and to tell all the paramilitary groups, "No prisoner releases until the guns are handed in." I was amazed at the right hon. Gentleman, who replied, "Would you keep innocent people still in prison?" I said, "Innocent people! The people you are letting out of prison are not innocent. They are as guilty as the people who carried out the Omagh bombing."
The IRA prisoners who are coming on to the streets of Northern Ireland are intent on joining the Real IRA. We have only to look at the names of people in the Real IRA to realise that—people such as Michael McKevitt, who was the IRA quartermaster-general and a man with immense influence over those who are at present in prison but are about to be released. What about Liam Campbell? I have also mentioned the three people from the Omagh area who were taken in by the police.
I asked the Prime Minister a simple question: if the law that we are asked to pass had been on the statute book, could those prisoners have been held and taken to court to prove themselves guilty or not guilty? The right hon. Gentleman did not give me a yes or no answer. If the Bill is to act properly, those people have to be rounded up, but the tragedy is that they will have disappeared by the time we get through the business.
I have heard some talk here about internment. I was in the House when internment was in force, and I believe in Executive internment. I believe that it is an act of a Government; it is not a judicial act, and it is not carried out in a judicial way. The Government say that they will put a certain person away, and they put him away.
People talk about the failure of internment, but what did the Government do at that time? They sewed on to the exercise of internment a quasi-judicial commission. People said, "We never knew who made the accusations against us, but we were put away." What did the Government do then? They hung up an army blanket in a room in the prison. If someone who had been interned wanted to appeal against it, he stood, and all he could see was the brown boots of the fellow behind the blanket. The commissioner asked, "Do you know this man?" and a voice from behind the blanket said, "Yes." "Is he a member of a terrorist organisation?" "Yes." All right, down he goes.
That procedure would have riled any section of the community, and Protestants, Roman Catholics and Jews who were interned were angry with the system. It went against any iota of decency and democracy—but that is not what we are talking about with the Bill.
Someone said that we were advocating internment. No; as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) rightly said, the person will be charged, but will have an opportunity to answer the charge. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, told us why that law is not working now in the south of Ireland, because of the change of approach. It is true that it is not working, yet we are now putting our hand to this measure to bring us into line with that law.
I hope that, when the Bill is passed, we shall see action by the Government, and such people will be taken out of circulation—but they will still be given the opportunity to go to court and stand trial. They will be able to have their day in court. No one wants an innocent person behind bars, but everybody wants the murderers of all those people behind bars.
Our trouble today is that many such people are to be released into our community. This is not a good day for our Province, or for the House. None the less, I shall vote for the Bill, because at least it is sending a signal, and saying, "You bombers of Omagh cannot do that without our taking these measures against you."

Mr. Tony Benn: This has been a remarkable debate, and I would like to identify some of the issues that it raises. First, I believe that most people will welcome the recall of Parliament. As you will remember, Madam Speaker, I wrote to you asking for the House to be recalled long before the Government suggested it, because the problem of terrorism relating to the bombing in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and the American response, seemed to me to raise important matters.
Secondly, on the legislation, a fairly substantial body of Members are not happy about the way in which the Bill has been presented to us on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Indeed, I am not happy about that myself. As an old parliamentarian, I was pleased to hear Members on both

sides of the House claim that the legislature still has some sort of role in a world dominated by Ministers, spin doctors, media commentators and so on.
The third thing on my mind as I listened to the debate was the fact that it provided me with an opportunity to say what I deeply believe—that the Belfast agreement is by far the most important and significant achievement by the present Government in the 16 months that they have been in power.
I have long thought that the war in Northern Ireland—the war in the United Kingdom—was our biggest single domestic problem, and I think that the Government's handling of it has been absolutely brilliant. In a minute I shall discuss the implications of that, but it is because it has been such a successful policy that I am totally opposed to the Bill that they have introduced. If I may be allowed briefly to explain the various elements in that argument, perhaps the House will listen to me.
I have sat in the House for nearly 48 years now. We all bring our personal experience to bear when we look at problems, but I have been thinking of the policies that have been advocated during my time in the House of Commons. It was said that Stormont would solve the problem of violence in Northern Ireland—it failed; that direct rule would put it right—it failed; that the prevention of terrorism Act would eliminate terrorism—it failed; that the Diplock courts would be the only way to deal with terrorists—they failed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and I went to the Crumlin road court one day, and we heard two Diplock trials being conducted. I had never seen such a thing before; it was a remarkable experience: a judge; a supergrass—an informer; the families behind armour-plated glass; the courtroom full of guys with submachine-guns. In one court, a Catholic judge was trying a Protestant terrorist; in the other, a Protestant judge was trying a Catholic terrorist. Afterwards, I went to the welfare, and there were the families from both communities, denouncing British justice because it was nothing whatever to do with the justice of which we boast.
I was in the Cabinet in August 1969, when sending in the troops was the great answer. In fairness, Jim Callaghan, Roy Hattersley and so on genuinely believed that it would solve the problem. Then there was the broadcasting ban; we would not allow Gerry Adams, as he was then, to broadcast—oh, no. That applied in the Republic as well as in the north. Then, when the ceasefire agreement was announced in 1994 by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Gerry Adams and Albert Reynolds, what did the then Home Secretary do? He prevented Gerry Adams from coming to London to address a meeting in the House. All the policies failed—every one.
The tribute that I pay to Ministers is that, by engineering the discussions, by bringing about the Belfast agreement and by bringing about the victory in the referendum and the election, they have made greater progress in dealing with terrorism than has been made by any other measure that I have mentioned. Of course, after a war—and it has been a war—there will always be examples of violence, but to try now, in the face of Omagh, to revert to one of the failed measures is very foolish: a matter of bad judgment. The right hon. Member


for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), speaking as a Back Bencher, honoured us with his experience. I thought that what he said about that was absolutely right.
The Bill is not necessary. It will not be effective. It does infringe civil liberties. It is no good saying that civil liberties do not help you if you are in a grave. Not only are civil liberties morally right, but they protect societies from violence because people are not tempted to violence by their denial. In addition, as many hon. Members have said, some of these measures, when used in the past, have recruited for violence, and there is a danger of abuse.
In my opinion, therefore, this is a thoroughly bad Bill. The fact that it is being pushed through on a single day will not help. No doubt, in five years' time, there will be many television programmes describing how Parliament got it wrong on the Bill, because the media are very, very clever at discovering the mistakes that they contributed to.
The second half of the Bill relates to conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) drew an interesting aspect of clause 5 to my attention. It reads:
Nothing in this section …imposes criminal liability on any person acting on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown.
I had asked whether the limitation on terrorism abroad would affect MI5 and the security services. I did not get an answer, but it is in the Bill.
On the issue of international terrorism, the House must surely know that, just as the right of self-defence is accepted in international law, if a nation loses its liberty people have the right to win that liberty—by force, if necessary.
Clinton is coming to Northern Ireland tomorrow. George Washington was a terrorist against George HI. In the old days, no one could get into America without swearing that they did not believe in the overthrow of the Head of State by force. I used to say, "I agree with you: George Washington was wrong." They did not like that very much. [Interruption.] Of course they did not like it, because George Washington was a terrorist.
I dare say that Edmund Burke, my predecessor as a Bristol Member, could have been caught under the Act for supporting the Americans at the time of the revolutionary war. But are we really going to say that anyone who supports groups who are trying to get rid of Saddam Hussein is guilty of terrorism?
I spoke in Trafalgar square in 1964, in the week of the Rivonia trial. As anyone who reads the transcript of that trial will see, Nelson Mandela admitted that he was a terrorist. The next time I met him, he had won the Nobel peace prize and was President of South Africa. The number of people whom I have met who spent time in British prisons and ended up having tea with the Queen—for what that is worth—is a reminder that all the anti-colonial movements involved an element of force.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Surely the point is that those who opposed the people cited by the right hon. Gentleman—whether we are talking about George Washington, Saddam Hussein or Nelson Mandela—had

no democratic rights, and no means of exercising such rights. That is not the position in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Benn: The hon. and learned Gentleman has repeated exactly what I said—that those whose democratic rights are removed have a basic entitlement to use force. I take his point, but there are countries in which that situation exists. Is it the case that, if we in Britain support people who are trying to secure democratic rights that dictatorships have denied them, we will be liable to be charged with promoting terrorism?
What I am saying could not be clearer. Of course I am basically a believer in non-violence—a supporter of Mr. Gandhi. When he came to London and the press asked him what he thought of civilisation in Britain, he said, "I think it would be a very good idea." Gandhi was in a British prison, and Gandhi was a believer in non-violence. But we must be absolutely clear about this: if we want to deal with violence—as the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) pointed out—we must have a politically democratic system. When there is such a system, there is no justification for violence.
I hope that nothing that I have said implies that I have any sympathy for the Omagh bombers, or any of the other bombers in Northern Ireland. When we consider the second part of the Bill, we are considering a different situation.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Surely no one is describing terrorism as violence of any kind for political means. There are political situations in which violence can be justified by almost anyone who does not have a pacifist temperament. The point about modern terrorism is that it is indiscriminate, and is aimed at innocent people. It is not directed against Heads of Government, soldiers or policemen; it kills men and women from all backgrounds and of all nationalities who just happen to be there.
We oppose the blowing up of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the blowing up of aeroplanes over Scotland or the blowing up of people in Omagh not because we disagree with the political aims of those responsible—although we do—but because hundreds of people were killed who were not party to that. The obvious intention was to create terror and instability at the expense of innocent people, and that justifies fairly draconian legislation and international co-operation.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not really understand the point. All war is violence against innocent people—all war, not just terrorism. The smart bombs killed 200,000 people in Iraq. I have been to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were bombed after the Japanese had offered to surrender. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been there too. I saw the little children's lunch boxes that had been burned by the bombs. Do not try to tell the House that only terrorists injure innocent people.
As I heard Churchill say in this House, "The alternative to war-war is jaw-jaw." That is the tribute I pay to my Front-Bench colleagues—they started the talking in Northern Ireland. My God—what a change it is to hear the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) appealing to us to follow the line of the Dail. I never thought that I would hear that in this House.
Gerry Adams—who should take his seat in this place, I might add—has appointed Martin McGuinness to the decommissioning body. Do not think that that is not serious, because it is. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and I were threatened with expulsion from the Labour party two years ago for meeting Gerry Adams. We cannot get to see him now—he is popping in and out of No. 10 all the time. If one argues an unpopular case, one must try to find the answers.
President Clinton is coming to Belfast tomorrow. He will say that he welcomes the end of the bombing, and he has said all along that those involved should not go in for reprisal bombings. That is exactly what he did when he bombed Sudan and Afghanistan. The world was as shocked by Dar es Salaam and Nairobi as it was by Omagh—more so, because more people were killed. President Clinton then threw it away by bombing Sudan.
We have no time to go into this, but it was funny that, a few months ago, President Clinton said that we should bomb Iraq because it would not let us inspect its factories. Now, having bombed Sudan, he will not agree to an inspection of the factories he bombed, because he knows that there is no evidence. What Clinton said about Sudan is what the police will say in cases involving terrorists—"I cannot tell you why I did it, for security reasons."
I mentioned an historical case earlier, and the Prime Minister rebuked me. He said that one must know history but live in the present. I agree with that, but, in 1858, the Palmerston Government fell because they introduced a conspiracy Bill, rather like this one, because the French Government wanted action taken against Orsini, an Italian who bought a bomb in London and tried to kill Napoleon III. The House of Commons—a rather more courageous place then than it is now—threw out the Bill, and Palmerston was out. Nothing much changes.
I referred to Omdurman in my question to the Prime Minister, because 10,000 Sudanese—who were held to be Islamic fundamentalists—were killed by Kitchener 100 years ago today. One of the cavalry officers who fought there sat in the House with me when I was elected—none other than Winston Churchill. I beg the House to take a proper historical perspective.
The only way to get peace, nationally or internationally, is by social justice and democracy—they provide the best guarantees. Nobody in Northern Ireland wants violence. Even the hideous and offensive apology by the Real IRA was an indication that they knew that they had no support, and INLA knew that they had to give up. That is the victory of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
I do not know whether there will be a Division on the Bill. If there is, I shall vote against it, because I think that it is a bad Bill, for the reasons that I have given. However, the important thing is that we address ourselves now—not only in Northern Ireland, but throughout the world—to the problem of how we deal with violence. It does not help to launch a cold war against Islam, or to whip people up into believing that there is only one way to deal with violence, which is more and more violence.
I put my argument respectfully to the House. The Government have done a brilliant job, but this is a bad Bill, presented to us in a bad way. It would be better if it did not go through on a vote tonight, although I know well that it will.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I wish to address briefly the provisions in the Bill that deal with conspiracy to commit offences overseas. I am glad to see the Attorney-General in his place, because most of my comments will be directed to him.
I must say to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and to the House that Hansard will show that those Labour Members who have expressed concerns about clause 5 and the provisions relating to conspiracy to commit offences overseas somehow seem to have wanted to give the impression that all terrorists are, in reality, romantic freedom fighters. If hon. Members do not believe that, just read Hansard tomorrow.
I was a Minister in the Foreign Office for a single year between being in the Department of the Environment and going to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. During that year, one thing struck me in relation to those countries with which I had the responsibility of dealing. One of our major bilateral problems with practically every one of those countries was a founded belief on their part that there were people in the United Kingdom who were using the UK as a base to plot terrorist activities in their countries.
Within the space of one year, high commissioners from a number of Commonwealth cousin countries came to see me. The high commissioners for India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh all, in their own ways, in reference to their countries, put forward moderate, proportionate cases for why they believed individuals in this country either had committed terrorist offences in their countries or were planning terrorist offences. They were concerned not about embarrassment, incitement or anything of that type, but about offences being committed.
The Government have said that they have introduced this part of the Bill because of the terrorist offences that were committed in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. Consider just how many people have been murdered in recent months and years by terrorists in Karachi alone—many more than were killed tragically in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. Therefore, it must be right for the UK to take action, if possible, against international terrorism and for us to ensure that there is no suggestion of the UK being used as a base for terrorist activities being planned overseas.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Home Secretary told us that, in relation to India, the power that is being taken in this Bill already existed. Is my hon. Friend saying that the Foreign Office was unable to use that power—if so, the taking of it for more countries seems to be valueless—or was it simply that the power was not in place when he was in the Foreign Office?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend moves me on to the next point that I wish to make. In the past, the line of Government generally—certainly the line of the previous Government and, I suspect, that of this Government—to such requests and representations has been that it has not been general policy to seek to prosecute offences committed outside the territory. This Bill will mean that all Governments will expect the UK to take action.
If an ambassador or high commissioner comes to the Foreign Office and says to Ministers there, "We have reason to believe that an individual or group of individuals


who are resident in the UK either have committed or plan to commit and conspire to commit an offence overseas. We expect action to be taken." If action is not taken, it will seriously poison bilateral relations with those countries.
Therefore, my request to the Attorney-General is that he take the earliest possible opportunity—I appreciate that he will not have the time tonight—to explain to the House, and, more important, to the rest of the world the process that will be followed in all this. Which Government Department is going to have the lead? If an ambassador or high commissioner has evidence from his Government of terrorist activities being undertaken or planned in the UK, does he go to the Foreign Office or the Home Office? Who then will undertake an investigation?
Is there to be a clear understanding that, if a Government with diplomatic representation at the Court of St. James make a claim that they consider to be valid—that someone who is resident in the UK is conspiring, or has conspired to commit an offence in their country—that will be investigated by the appropriate police force in the UK? Is there to be a clear understanding that, if the officers in charge believe that an offence has been committed, those individuals will be arrested and the matter will be referred to the Attorney-General?
The Attorney-General also has to explain other issues publicly and clearly. The Attorney-General will not be involved in a case until the papers are referred to him. If there is sufficient evidence for police officers to arrest someone on the belief that an offence has been committed under clause 5 and the Attorney-General decides not to prosecute, he will have a great responsibility, because the Government of the country concerned will feel that the United Kingdom has let them down. It will not be sufficient for the Attorney-General to say simply that he has not prosecuted because it is contrary to the public interest. That could sour our relations with the country concerned for a long time. Clear criteria will have to be set out on the circumstances in which the Attorney-General may decide not to institute a prosecution.
The Government also have to explain, not just to the House, but to the rest of the world, the provision in the Bill for Ministers to overrule the Attorney-General's decision to institute a prosecution. Which Minister or Department will take the lead? Will it be a matter for the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary? It will not be sufficient simply for a Secretary of State to say that he considers prosecution to be against the public interest. That could poison relations with a friendly country. The conditions and criteria under which Ministers can intervene to stop a prosecution will have to be clear.
I support the provisions in the Bill and I believe that many friendly Governments around the world will also support them. I suspect that many colleagues who go to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference this year will find that many from elsewhere in the Commonwealth will welcome the provisions. We have to recognise that, when we have introduced the provisions, there will be an expectation around the world that they will be implemented.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said that some of the provisions on Northern Ireland may not work, but they are important presentationally. It is

not sufficient to say that clauses 5, 6 and 7 are there for presentational reasons and are window dressing. The rest of the international community will expect us to act on the provisions. They will want a clear understanding of how the Government will act and the processes that they will introduce to ensure that the provisions can be implemented.
I very much hope that the Attorney-General and the appropriate lead Secretary of State will make the fullest possible explanation at the earliest opportunity of the processes to be used. I suspect that many Governments around the world will want a clear understanding of what the Government intend. They will want to be sure that we are genuine in our intent to take action and that the measure is not simply window dressing by the Government.

Mr. Brian White: I support the recall of Parliament today and agree with the need to take action and introduce laws in the north and the south of Ireland together. However, when I first heard about the Bill I had several concerns. My main concern was whether it would work—would it achieve the objective that was set out for it? The theme of today's debates seems to have been that we should learn from the past. I welcome some of the safeguards that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has added to the Bill. They are a significant improvement on some of the announcements over the weekend.
There are two ways to defeat terrorism. There is the way that Britain used in Malaya in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and the Serbs are now using in Kosovo, which is to take military action and wipe out village after village. No one would argue now that that is the right way, although I suspect some Opposition Members have inklings in that direction. The alternative method is the one that the Government have chosen, which is to tackle the political dimension.
It is important that we recognise the effect of anti-terrorist laws after they are passed. There have been many anti-terrorist laws passed in many countries; some of those have worked, but many have had the opposite effect and increased support for terrorists instead of diminishing it. I want to ensure that the legislation before us reduces support for terrorists.
The biggest single event this year, apart from the Northern Ireland agreement, was the reaction of the people of Dundalk to the Omagh bombing. They came out and said, "We do not want violence." That was a highly significant act. We have waited a long time for it, but the political conditions were not right before. We have to understand the effect of laws on communities, and recognise that by subjecting a community to injustices, we increase support for terrorism instead of decreasing it. That point has been made several times already this evening.
I shall illustrate that with an example dating from the introduction of the prevention of terrorism Act. A 17-year-old was travelling from Belfast to Heathrow in Christmas 1974, just after the Birmingham pub bombings. This cocky 17-year-old kid was stopped at Heathrow and asked for some identification. He said, "I don't need a passport to travel from one part of the United Kingdom to another. This is not the Soviet Union—we don't have


gulags here." He had just been reading Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago". That kid was taken into custody, questioned for hours and accused of being a member of the IRA. I believe that a press statement was drafted suggesting that an IRA suspect had been arrested at Heathrow. Only the intervention of a senior customs officer who knew the kid resolved that situation, but I know that, 10 years later, a police superintendent remained convinced that the kid was a member of the IRA, when all he was was a stupid little boy.
The important point is that injustices occur when legislation is rushed through the House. The example I have given is a minor one, which does not compare with the cases of the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six, but it illustrates what can happen when people get caught up in events. We all want to get the terrorists who bombed Omagh, but we will not get them by quick fixes or by bad legislation, because that will trigger an adverse reaction. Let us look at how other pieces of legislation have worked: the banning of Sinn Fein members' voices has already been mentioned, but the point is that the message still came through; people could not hear the voices, but they still heard the message.
I hope that the Bill does achieve some of the objectives set out by the Government. I hope that it will be proportionate, but it would be more proportionate if some of the amendments were accepted by the Government, especially the one that would ensure that solicitors were present throughout interviews in Northern Ireland. I would also argue strongly that some of the security forces' proposals should be scrutinised carefully in respect of their practicality. We all agree on the principle, but we must concentrate on the practicalities.
Clauses 5 to 7 have been mentioned by many hon. Members, so I shall content myself by asking two questions of the Minister. What worries me is the difficulty of distinguishing between a genuine charge and a trumped-up charge. How is the question of a person's innocence or otherwise to be determined? There are clear arguments in favour of laying down in the Bill procedures relating to the sort of evidence that will be admissible.
There is also the question of state-sponsored terrorism. How would we deal with, for example, the French secret service's actions in Auckland, or with the Central Intelligence Agency's activities in Nicaragua, if British people had been involved in either?
We have been told that British Crown personnel are exempt from the Bill, but what is the position of the people whom they employ—the Sandlines of this world? Will they be caught under the legislation for carrying out British Government policy, or will they be exempt, and what will be the consequences of any such exemption?
I will support the Government tonight, because it is important that the House sends a message of unity with the Dail, but I urge them to accept the amendments that have been tabled to improve the Bill and strengthen the safeguards so that its misuse cannot lead to support for the men of evil. Those people should be given no oxygen in the political vacuum that has been created. Let us not give them any renewed hope.
I support the Government's campaign against terrorism, but far more important than what we are doing today is the message of the peace process and of what is happening in Belfast through talks between the parties. Bringing the

remaining terrorist organisations into the peace process will resolve the problems far more effectively than the Bill ever could.
Not many people were arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 who could not have been jailed under other Acts. The same will be true of the Bill when it is enacted, and I implore the Government to accept the amendments that have been tabled.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: We have heard many good contributions this evening, two of which made an especially strong impact on me. One was that of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), which was the usual irrelevance that used to make me so angry, but which I can now pleasantly ignore. The other was that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), for whom I have the highest regard, in that I know his genuine concern for the traditions of the House and the rights of its Members.
In the right hon. Gentleman's knockabout contribution—which was most entertaining; he has a talent that many of us wish we could emulate—we lost sight for a few moments of the serious issue. We are here because the largest single tragedy in 28 years of violence in Northern Ireland occurred a few Saturdays ago, and it is important to recognise that, whatever the right hon. Gentleman's intentions, if we follow him to the logical conclusion of his argument, we will have something in this country that is little better than anarchy. What he says is entertaining within the Chamber, but outside ordinary people have had to face the horror of terrorism for 28 years, and to drift down the road that he described would be to drift towards anarchy.
I do not want for one minute to diminish the horror of the Omagh incident, but I must remind right hon. and hon. Members that in 28 years more than 3,300 people have died at the hands of terrorists, among whom I must include the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), who was the commander of the unit of the IRA that placed a bomb in the window of the La Mon hotel and burned to death members of a canine club. He was commander of the unit in West Belfast that was responsible for bomb after bomb going off at Oxford street bus station in Belfast, killing many people who were going home. I do not regret that the efforts by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to bring that person to speak in the House were frustrated by the Government and by Madam Speaker.
When we view the legislation, we must consider the needs of society as a whole. I have never looked exclusively at the needs of Northern Ireland's Unionist or Protestant people. I look to the needs of society. I came into politics with the objective of helping people in Northern Ireland society to find a way to work together in partnership, sharing responsibility in a way that enabled us to have political stability and peace. I am trying to remember the age of my eldest child. He is 35 and he cannot recall a time when there was not violence in Northern Ireland.
It is against that background and not in a knockabout play on words that we must try to make a judgment. If I have anything to say to the Government it is not that I am


concerned that the human rights of many people will be jeopardised. The human rights of people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, throughout this United Kingdom have been jeopardised only by the actions of terrorists over the past 28 years. Some mistakes have been reciprocal to the violence, but no Government set out to undermine the civil rights of people in our society.
Many of my colleagues regard me as being too liberal. [Interruption.] People may laugh, but there is always the difficulty and the danger that a Northern Ireland Member who tries to look at the interests of society as a whole is considered to be foolishly and naively liberal. People who have enthusiastically supported, as I have, the agreement of 10 April are considered by many to be naive and too liberal. It is because of my regard for that agreement that I do not want the Government to make the mistake that has been made by one Government after another. That mistake was not to take measures that endangered human rights but rather to take timid, inadequate measures that were too little and too late to protect lives in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Hull, North have said that we tried this and that and that it did not work. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, if Governments had not taken such measures, the bloodshed would have been much worse as two traditions, fearful of each other, would have been let loose, resulting in a much greater tragedy than the one that has occurred over the past 28 years.[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Chesterfield may shake his head, but those of us who have seen people fleeing to their ghettos, who have seen people move because of the intimidation of men of violence, can have little time for the simplistic arguments that we have heard tonight.
My concern is that the two measures that we are debating that will affect Northern Ireland are, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has already said in respect of one of the measures, inadequate.
I hope that the Minister will listen for a moment because I should like a response on my next point. May I have a clarification from him in respect of inferences to be drawn by the court should a person being questioned fail to mention a fact that is material to the offence and that he could reasonably be expected to mention? I refer to subsection (4)(b) of proposed new section 2A in clause 1 as it impacts on subsection (6)(a).
It seems that a substantial change is being applied in respect of questioning procedure in so far as a person being questioned will have to be given access to a solicitor before being questioned rather than at some time up to 48 hours after his arrest, as would apply if that person were being questioned specifically about, say, the Omagh atrocity.
Does that not mean that the membership offence has to be dealt with separately from any other offence, and that, in practice, arrests for membership will have to be exclusively for that purpose? In other words, is it true that the provision could not be applied where a person is first arrested in connection with a specific terrorist offence, such as the Omagh atrocity, where, for quite justifiable reasons, which I, the Minister and most hon. Members understand, the 48-hour embargo on solicitor access is

applied, and when the matter of membership arises only as a secondary consideration? As the questioning continues a little progress may be made and it suddenly may become evident that there is one thing that can be proved based on intelligence and the questioning itself, and that is that the person is a member of an illegal organization.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The hon. Gentleman raises a fundamental issue—whether in those circumstances there would have to be a preliminary inquiry to determine whether such a person was a terrorist falling within the proscribed classes, which would enable the regulations to apply to him before he could then, in a subsequent terrorist offence, such as the bombing, be subject to the proofs that the new regulations provide.

Mr. Maginnis: Yes. The hon. and learned Gentleman will, I think, agree that in terms of complementing the existing legislation that enables us to deal with terrorists, this will be pretty useless. That is the point to which I should like a response.
I note that in proposed new section 2B in clause 1 the Secretary of State has the power to specify any organisation that she believes
has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.
I am pleased that this part of the legislation refers to specified organisations. I do not want, and I do not think that we need, a great broad brush. I am content with that, but I would be interested in hearing details of the logical basis on which the Secretary of State makes that judgment.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to a number of incidents. I shall refer to three, which relate to the IRA, the UDA and the UVF respectively. Those are not specified organisations, nor are they likely to be. They are supposed to be observing a ceasefire—perhaps they are the "good terrorists" of the hon. Member for Hull, North.
The IRA, as we all know, shot Mr. Kearney and left him where he was bound to bleed to death. They callously killed him and we know that the senior member of the Provisional IRA was responsible for that incident. It is common knowledge. As we say, the dogs in the street know it.
There was an incident in Londonderry in which two Catholic brothers were shot. It is now known that that was by members of the UDA—I believe they have been charged—who have carried out other acts of terrorism for that organisation. That is admitted.
Most recently, there was the heist in east or north Belfast in the past week, when up to nine members of the UVF were caught trying to hijack a load of cigarettes or whiskey—I cannot remember what it was—in order to fund that illegal organization.
It is not the discretion of the police that worries me, but the discretion of those in charge of the Northern Ireland Office who are still dominated by the euphoria of the 10 April agreement. Whatever I might think of that agreement and however much I may support it, I am not overwhelmed by euphoria. I know that there is an uphill struggle that must be completed before the agreement can yield what we want it to yield. The politics of headlines and of soundbites are not enough at this time.
What were spoken of as voluntary contributions from various political organisations or paramilitary-linked political parties in the past are no longer to be voluntary contributions. In so far as those organisations have signed up to the Stormont agreement, those have become obligations, which must be met. The Government must stop trying to implement the agreement unilaterally. To do so is to destroy it for those of us who would be its strongest supporters. We will lose the confidence of society and with it our ability to carry the agreement forward in the way that we would wish.
I caution the Government seriously and without rancour to reassess how they legislate. Whether they will be persuaded to ameliorate the Bill tonight will be important. It needs to be stiffened up. I shall give an example of one of the nonsensical aspects of the Bill. One of the most impractical provisions in the Bill is that in clause 4(3), which refers to the forfeiture of the property of convicted terrorists. That should be able to happen, but what will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland do with the house or the pub somewhere in south Armagh when it is forfeit? Will she be able to sell it to another resident in the area? We know that it cannot be sold to another resident in the area. So should I expect to see our Secretary of State ordering the bulldozers down? It will be a little bit like more historical times—firing the thatch. I do not think that we are going to indulge in that either, so let us be very careful about property. I am not terribly sure that it can be disposed of. The worst thing that we can do is to seize property that cannot be disposed of and allow the person from whom it is seized to repossess it without paying any penalty.
There is increasing evidence that financial resources are held by terrorists and terrorist organisations. They are not being tackled at present because those who hold illegally obtained finances are supposed to be observing a ceasefire. There must be equity before the law for everyone. I do not believe that it will weaken the agreement one iota, harm the Government or harm any of us to have that equity before the law demonstrated as it should be demonstrated.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government are serious about tracing illegal funding, one of the best places for them to start is with public expenditure in Northern Ireland? They should check up on all the miscellaneous expenditure by contractors, many of whom are still paying protection money.

Mr. Maginnis: That is something that, in the more than 15 years that I have been in the House, I have repeated again and again. I have heard colleagues raise this point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it again. The Government must seriously look at the massive embezzlement of public funds—for example, the giros that go to convenience addresses. I know that that is not peculiar to Northern Ireland, but it has a significance in terms of terrorism there.
There are many things that one would want to get off one's chest on an occasion such as this, but I conclude by reminding the House why we need more stringent anti-terrorist legislation and why we cannot be content to finish with what we have in front of us tonight. I hope that the Government are serious when they say that they are examining the possibility of using wire-tap evidence

and investigating other matters that have been suggested by the Chief Constable. I believe that those who have been involved in the process that led to the agreement are being forced, many of them reluctantly, to move inch by inch inexorably towards a democratic process, or at least towards decision point, where they have to jump the psychological hurdle from the Armalite and ballot box strategy to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. As they move, others are drifting away to the Real IRA and perhaps to other organizations—who knows? Those people have to be stopped now before they make an impression on the young.
No one has been caught for the Omagh bomb. No one has been charged. Young people will be impressed that Mr. McKevitt and others whom I could name have managed to elude the Brits, the Irish Government and the Dail. If they are not brought to justice, that will help with recruitment. For that reason, we should be trying to co-operate as far and as actively as we can with the Government of the Irish Republic—yes, to the extent of at least getting internment back on the statute book.
I do not think it is a secret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann and I met the Taoiseach in the wake of the Omagh bomb. Talking about the measures that he was going to introduce, he said that he had no intention of introducing internment at this stage, but that his great problem was that he may need it. He said that he intended ruthlessly to suppress the Real IRA, and if he wanted to intern, he would. He said that only one thing would hinder him—the fact that we did not have the ability to match and assist him because we no longer had internment on the statute book. I leave the Home Secretary with that thought, and I hope that he will respond.

Dr. Nick Palmer: The Bill comes at a critical moment in the development of the peace process. I believe that, for most of us, the presumption is favourable in the sense that we have to assume that now, after the Omagh bomb and after the successes of the peace process, it is sensible to take further action to crack down on the small groups that are defying the peace process. Realistically—one needs realism in dealing with the Ulster problem—that was not possible when there were very large organisations with broad popular support, but it now appears possible to isolate the small groups that are still defying public opinion across the whole of northern and southern Irish society. That provides a window of opportunity that the Government are seeking to seize through the Bill.
Despite comment in the media to the effect that the whole of northern Irish society is now behind the peace process and that people have revolted against the Omagh bomb, it would be a dangerous illusion to assume that there is not a small group of people still willing to use and committed to the way of the bomb and the bullet. After every atrocity, there has always been a group of such people; there are still such people today, and there will be in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the 250,000 people who voted no in the referendum—the number who now agree


with them is growing—are to be associated in any way with those involved in armed violence alleged to be directed towards wrecking the peace process.

Dr. Palmer: I made no such suggestion. I was saying that a small minority in various parts of the northern Irish community is still committed to armed violence. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with that assessment. We have to consider whether the Bill will enable the Government to stamp out, or at least remove, that minority from circulation without doing irreparable harm to human rights.
Like several hon. Members, I have reservations about the weight that the Bill places on the judgment of individual senior police officers. There have been too many cases in which police officers, being human like the rest of us, have come under pressure to solve an especially heinous crime, have found a suspect whom they felt was likely to have done it and have then taken short cuts. Given the nature of human beings, we have to accept that that will happen again, and that it is a risk inherent in this type of legislation.
For this window of opportunity, when a small, isolated group is defying the whole of Northern Irish society, it is worth taking that risk in the short term to take the group out of circulation. However, we need to avoid the temptation to create a new power that will last for as long as the PTA. Both sides of the House must recognise that this is an emergency power, which is being imposed because of a critical situation and that, in due course, we hope that it will be possible to move away from it. With that in mind, I want an assurance from the Minister that, when he makes his annual report on the state of this legislation, he will include an assessment of whether all aspects of the Bill are still necessary, whether it is still being actively applied, whether the application is satisfactory or whether the time has come to step back from this emergency power.
I said that we should proceed with the Bill despite those reservations principally because public confidence is critical at this point and it would be totally insane—and it would be seen to be insane—if terrorists planning to plant bombs in Northern Ireland fled there from southern Ireland to avoid similar provisions there. We have to match what the Dail decides in this matter—the two Governments and Parliaments need to move in step.
However, I would make a distinction for internment, which several hon. Members have raised. At present, internment is not proposed in southern Ireland. The reintroduction of that power would have a massive political impact in Northern Ireland, which could not be conducive to the present peaceful process. Those who suggest internment on the mainland have not seriously considered the impact that it would have, just as those who propose that we should break the Good Friday agreement by cancelling prisoner releases pending decommissioning have not seriously assessed the impact of that proposal.
The problem with clauses 5 to 7 can be precisely identified. Some hon. Members have said that the double test is sufficient to ensure that no one is victimised. They have said that, if an offence is a crime both here and in the other country in which it arises, there is no problem.

The problem arises when the offence is a crime here, because we have a democratic alternative, and a crime in the other country, because opposition is not tolerated.
To give a concrete example, we talked about the African National Congress and its campaign against electricity pylons. If that were updated to today, and a group were planning to blow up pylons in a western European country, all of us would oppose it—although, because Brussels was involved, the Conservative party would support it, I suppose. We would speak with one voice within democratic western Europe, saying that such behaviour was totally unacceptable.
If the group were in a friendly, autocratic country, such as Saudi Arabia, it would be more difficult to reach a firm view. Possibly, our view of the action would in practice depend on the people who were carrying it out. There are popular and less popular opposition groups. We would be moving into dangerous terrain if we started judging the offence by whether we liked the people who were doing it, and whether we considered that they were in the democratic opposition or the fundamentalist opposition.
We could move a step further and consider the application to Iraq. If we read that the opposition there had decided to give up violent opposition to Saddam Hussein and were concentrating on electricity pylons, would we say, "This is a very serious offence; we must seize those people immediately"? Probably not.
In contrast to the private Member's Bill two years ago, this Bill provides a backstop—the Attorney-General, who has to decide whether to approve a prosecution if the possibility arises. However, as others have said, that can backfire, because at the moment if the Saudi ambassador says to us, "What that exile group is doing on your territory is shocking. What are you going to do about it?" we can say, "We are terribly sorry, but unfortunately our law does not allow us to do anything at all. Goodbye." That will not be possible in future. We shall have to say, "Well, the Attorney-General is a funny chap; he does not seem to want to do that."
We are delivering the Attorney-General into a difficult grey area of political judgment, in which either he will have to have clear, firm guidelines, as was suggested earlier, so that everybody knows where we stand, or he will have to make decisions from case to case, which will frequently cause a degree of political friction.
I seek two assurances in that regard. First, if the United Nations has passed resolutions relevant to the case, the Attorney-General should have to take them into account. Again I am taking the South African example. I believe that, if there is a resistance campaign that is sufficiently clearly in the right to attract United Nations support, no British Government should imprison people for non-terrorist acts in support of that campaign.

Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House is the only body capable of making the judgment that he suggests, the idea of which I appreciate? If that is the system that he wishes to see in operation, would it not work effectively only through an annual report to the House saying which countries fall within the criteria and which without, so that the House could debate and decide the matter?

Dr. Palmer: That is an interesting proposal; it would really throw the fat in the fire if we attempted to classify


the world's nations into those to which we were prepared to support opposition and those to which we were not. I suspect that most British Governments would prefer to delegate such decisions to the United Nations Security Council, where we have a veto, but where we can also achieve a broader view.
The second assurance that I seek from the Minister is that the legislation should be used sympathetically in cases in which an organisation breaks the law only because it has been denied democratic options. I believe that, if there were a democratic alternative to illegal action, most of us would have little time for any group that did not take that alternative, but I hope that, if one did not exist, and the group were operating with restraint, the Government would view its activities in a somewhat different light.
Despite those reservations, I support the Bill. I believe that, in the last resort, that is our duty to the peace process and to the leaders of the political parties behind the peace process, who have taken a not inconsiderable personal risk; above all, it is our duty to the people of Northern Ireland, who have voted so overwhelmingly for the peace process and who look to us for their protection and support, to carry through that process into a durable peace for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Because of the lateness of the hour, I shall be brief. I am sure in common with many right hon. and hon. Members, I was pleased to break my holiday to come back and debate this important issue. It is enormously significant. I believe that everyone, from whichever side of the House they speak, agrees that the House should have been recalled in this way. I do so because I fully support the main thrust of the Bill.
One of the things about being on holiday that gives one a sense of perspective about these debates is the fact that one inevitably reads newspapers that are at least a day old. As I followed the discussions about the likely contents of the Bill, I acquired a sense of perspective. I noted from what I read that the word "draconian" was being bandied about. I believe that even the Home Secretary would accept, with hindsight, that this was a silly and demeaning bit of spinning, even by the Government's standards.
Then, this morning, as I sat fuming on the runway while my plane was waiting to obtain air traffic control clearance, I reflected that my colleagues in the House would be much better informed than I about the contents of the Bill. I was relatively reassured, therefore, to return to find that, in fact, colleagues had been able to get their hands on a draft of the Bill only at a very late stage yesterday. Indeed, different versions seem to have been floated past us as the debate has developed.
There have been delays in drafting the Bill. I accept that, in some cases, those were due to genuine changes of mind about the balance that should be achieved on individual issues. I accept what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the shadow Home Secretary, said about the fact that we must accept some imprecision on these occasions because we accept the basic aspirations of the Bill.
I have said that I am in favour of effective and comprehensive anti-terrorist legislation. That is one reason why I introduced my Bill, the Jurisdiction

(Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill, as a private Member's Bill. It is also why I shall dwell on clauses 5 to 7 of the Bill before us—clauses which, because of that very private Member's Bill, have already received scrutiny by the House in the recent past.
Terrorism can touch us all, whether we are talking about Omagh or about the quiet Sussex lane where my predecessor, Ian Gow, was murdered by the IRA. When I introduced my Bill, it struck me that it was an extraordinary loophole in our law that apparently people could conspire and incite to carry out such terrible acts in other countries without breaking English law. That is why I am interested in effective anti-terrorist legislation, not in petty wrangling about what happened to my Bill. I pay tribute to the Society of Conservative Lawyers, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who, some years ago, presciently foresaw the problems that would have to be addressed in the Bill.
However, undeniably, when my Bill was before the House, it was Labour Back Benchers who forced a vote on the motion "That strangers do withdraw", and, despite the honeyed words of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) supporting my Bill, when it came to it, the official Opposition, as they then were, failed to go into the Division Lobby to support my Bill. Indeed, I remember Labour Members being shooed out of the Lobby by the then Labour Chief Whip.

Mr. Donald Anderson: rose—

Mr. Waterson: However, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who has been consistent in his intelligent interest in my Bill and this Bill, and in his reservations about my Bill. In his earlier remarks he recognised his role, and that of his party, in the demise of my Bill.

Mr. Anderson: Before the hon. Gentleman rewrites history too much, he must surely concede that, had he received the full support of the Government on whose behalf he was acting as agent with his private Member' s Bill—that is, if a sufficient number of Conservative Members had been asked to attend on the relevant day—there would have been no problem.
From the start, part of the difficulty was that no, or no adequate, safeguards were written into that Bill, but many Labour Members were happy for the Bill to proceed once the sifting mechanism with the Attorney-General had been added. However, the hon. Gentleman must surely accept that the Conservative Government had acted with insufficient commitment in not properly supporting his Bill by ensuring that Conservative Members were there.

Mr. Waterson: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's second set of points later in my speech, when they will arise naturally. As for his earlier comments, as I have said, I do not wish to become involved in a wrangle about whose fault it was; I am merely saying that it is not for the current Home Secretary to take credit for having always supported this Bill. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea, East for his consistency throughout the stages of my Bill, and, indeed, for his attitude to the current Bill, but I agree with him that we should not rewrite history. It is important for these matters to be put on the record.
The Bill has a long and distinguished provenance. I leave aside my own involvement, before which we had Lord Lloyd's report and the report of the Society of


Conservative Lawyers, which I have mentioned. At the time of my Bill, I was grateful for the enthusiastic support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who was then Home Secretary. It was ironic at the time—this was reflected in the comments of the hon. Member for Swansea, East during the debates—that the House had only recently supported a very similar measure applying to paedophilia and other activities in foreign countries.
Against all that background, I was a trifle taken aback when I heard the Prime Minister say in his statement earlier today:
We are therefore taking the opportunity of Parliament's recall to put into law long-held plans to make a criminal offence of conspiracy to commit offences outside the UK.
As I put it to the Home Secretary, what is the difference between then and now? There are no degrees of terrorism, whether it is hundreds in Nairobi or a single much-loved local Member of Parliament. When I introduced my Bill, a case was proceeding in the Old Bailey, which I quoted, in which those responsible—or allegedly responsible—for bombing the Israeli embassy here in London were using this very defence. It was a very current issue then, as indeed it is now.
I merely make the point—more in sorrow than in anger—that, if my Bill had received the support from all parts of the House that it deserved at the time, it would have been on the statute book for some 18 months.
Finally, let me touch on the reassurances that were in my Bill, and are in this Bill, for those on both sides of the House who have expressed concerns about civil liberties. The question of dual criminality, which has been discussed at length, is a major safeguard, ensuring that any offence that is brought before the courts must be an offence in this country as well as in the other country. If, in Iraq, for example, it is a criminal offence to publish pamphlets criticising Saddam Hussein, that will not be actionable in the courts in this country. We have, of course, the normal rules of the English legal system to protect the accused: charges must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
As for the safeguard of the Attorney-General, I think, with respect, that some Labour Members are misguided in regard to the sort of political decision or judgment that they think the Attorney-General may be called on to make in certain cases. I do not think that there is a major difference between this Bill and my Bill in that respect. In the earlier instance, the Director of Public Prosecutions became involved in the decision to prosecute; but, in any event—this was an error that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) fell into—the Attorney-General has always had the power to intervene in any prosecution in this country, under the nolle prosequi rule, if he sees fit.
There has been considerable agonising, both today and during the stages of my Bill, about one man's terrorist being another man's freedom fighter. That is not a problem with which Labour Members need wrestle; it does not come into this Bill, as it did not come into my Bill. Terrorism is not defined as such, and, as we said at the time of my Bill, it would be very difficult to define it. We must merely establish that a criminal offence has been committed both in this country and in the other country, and that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
I emphasise that neither my Bill nor, I believe, this Bill was ever intended to discourage peaceful political protest and dissent from a foreign regime. After all, we are the country that allowed Karl Marx to sit in the reading room of the British museum, writing "Das Kapital". Long may such activity continue.
We will continue to be a safe haven for such people—not for those who abuse our hospitality by plotting mayhem and criminal acts overseas. We will ensure that those who abuse our hospitality by planning criminal actions in foreign countries—friendly or otherwise—are subject to our laws, and that has not been the case so far. For those reasons, and a number of others, I am happy to support the Bill.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I wish to explain briefly why I have put my name to the reasoned amendment, and I want to confine my remarks to the aspects of the Bill that deal with Northern Ireland. I want to say to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), that it would help a large number of Labour Members and others if they would concede the point about having audio recordings of interviews in every case from day one, and if they would accept the provision that solicitors remain with those facing charges while interrogations take place.
I am going to say things that I do not mean to be offensive, and I do not want to upset people—especially colleagues from Northern Ireland. However, I will say directly to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in particular that he and some of his colleagues seem much happier living in the past than facing up to the future.
Regrettably, some of my Front-Bench colleagues do not seem to have appreciated what I regard as the highly significant developments in Northern Ireland since the dreadful outrage in Omagh. Things that happened before the House was recalled in response to what happened in Omagh give grounds for considerable hope and optimism. After the outrage in Omagh—and however sickening it was—the group that claimed responsibility for it, the so-called Real IRA, for the first time ever did not simply apologise, but went on to announce that they were no longer going to commit acts of violence. INLA had said earlier that they had given up violence.
Yesterday, Sinn Fein said that violence was
a thing of the past. Over, done with and gone.
Too many in this House, including the Government—perhaps they are too near it—have missed the real significance of those statements. What is important are some of the reasons that lie behind those statements. There is no question but that that is exactly the outcome that the Government, and all those who put their hands to the historic Good Friday agreement, wanted. They wanted the community in Northern Ireland to show that it was fed up with violence, and that it wanted to take the gun out of Irish politics.
The Secretary of State, in an article in The Observer, spoke about
the small number of individuals in groups on either side of the border who are still engaged in violence. These people have no support in the community.


That was demonstrated by the referendums on both sides of the border which endorsed the Good Friday agreement. Over the whole island of Ireland, nine out of every 10 people who voted in that referendum supported the agreement and made it clear that they had had enough of violence. However, they made something else clear.
This is what I think is being missed, and why Sinn Fein, the Real IRA and INLA have made the statements they have. In that referendum and in the reaction to the outrage in Omagh, the people of both traditions in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, the people in the Republic of Ireland—were saying that they were no longer going to hide the men and weapons that make these acts of terrorism possible. They were saying that they would no longer supply them with the information that has helped those on both sides of the argument, let it be said, and has made this violence possible.
Colleagues anywhere in the House can say to me that I am being wildly optimistic about this. What I argue is that at least this is a possible and credible explanation. It goes beyond the mere euphoria of that hard-negotiated Good Friday agreement and the result in both the referendum and elections in Northern Ireland that followed. It is of profound importance.
We all know—colleagues from Northern Ireland must know better than I, but we know it from other parts of the world—that no terrorist organisation can survive for any length of time without some support in the communities on whose behalf it claims to act. These groups cannot exist in isolation. They need people to provide the alibis, the information, the so-called safe houses to hide the people who have committed acts of terrorism and to hide the weapons under the beds, in the cupboards or wherever it is.
My interpretation of what has happened in Northern Ireland is that those facilities that have been available in both communities have now been withdrawn; otherwise, why would INLA or the Real IRA have made the statements that they have? There was no need for them to do that. My strong view is that it is at least open to that interpretation—they have now recognised that, if you like, their life support system has been withdrawn by the communities on which they previously relied.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is it not possible that the more likely reason is that those groups were given 24 hours to do exactly that by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, or he would use against them the type of legislation that we are putting through the House tonight?

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates the point that I made earlier about his great wish to live in the past. He knows as much as I do about the people who were responsible for the Omagh outrage—nothing. He may have his suspicions as to who they are and where they live. Indeed, some Northern Ireland Members have given names in this Chamber today. That is not proof and evidence.
I say to the hon. Gentleman again: please at least consider the possibility that the withdrawal of the life support system from these terrorist groups is really what has made them realise and accept that violence will no longer win support from those communities in Northern Ireland. That is my view. It will not be shared universally—I acknowledge that—but I ask the hon. Gentleman and others at least to consider it.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in particular and to his Front-Bench colleagues: what saddens me about their proposals is that implicit in them is the suggestion that nothing has changed in Northern Ireland, and that the only proper response to Omagh is to pile more anti-terrorist legislation on to what we have already.
The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) reminded us that he was in the House on the night the prevention of terrorism Bill was introduced—as a temporary measure to last for six months. So was I, although we voted in different Division lobbies. I come to the issue as a representative of the city of Birmingham, so I feel that I have a special responsibility to make judgments on what the Government are proposing for Northern Ireland.
It is no good pretending that legislation such as the prevention of terrorism Act will beat terrorism. It has not done so, and it will not, as the past 24 years have demonstrated. The Act has given a bonus to those on both sides who have engaged in violence by giving them martyrs—people in prison who can be used as recruiting sergeants and to raise cash.
The PTA has also done something more damaging. On the perjured evidence of police officers under oath, it persuaded jurors to convict the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and others in a long line of serious miscarriages of justice. Police officers lied on oath—officers whose word, together with the silence of the accused, could send someone to prison for up to 10 years under the Bill. We should all know what we are doing if there is a Division on Second Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) gave us a quote from Lord Denning. The PTA led Lord Denning and a series of distinguished judges over many years to dismiss with contempt the appeals of those wrongly convicted of terrorist offences. The Birmingham Six fought for 15 years for the justice to which they were entitled.
Short cuts with justice lead inevitably to miscarriages of justice. Replacing the presumption of innocence to which a defendant is entitled with a presumption of guilt—as the Bill does, in my view—is wrong and risky, and encourages the police to take short cuts. The opinion of a police officer is not evidence; it is an opinion. As the Home Secretary has confirmed, if a defendant remains silent in the face of an accusation, that can be interpreted as corroboration of the opinion of a police officer. This will surely take the Home Secretary to the European Court of Human Rights, so I wonder what the justification is for running a real risk of miscarriages of justice.
Of course there should be a response to evil acts of major terrorism, but the proposals must face the tests of reasonableness, effectiveness and how they are likely to play with the public. They fail on each count, and will do nothing to encourage and support the strong majority in both parts of Ireland who have made it clear that those who turn to them for help in terror will no longer get it.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Nobody in their right mind would ever justify what happened in Omagh a few days ago. In my objections to several parts of the Bill, I hope that hon. Members will not consider me soft on terrorism. Perhaps I could be considered tough on civil liberties and the need to avoid denials of them. That might ring a bell with the Government Front Bench.
On such an important issue, some emergency action is needed in the national interest. Surely, such briefing as was available to Labour Back Benchers last week should have been made available to the rest of the House—[Interruption.] That there was some correspondence has been confirmed to me by some Labour Members; perhaps they were not telling the truth. In any case, there should have been some ground work before today, because the Bill is important and far-reaching.
The Government's attitude leaves a lot to be desired. The Bill was made available only at 5.55 pm yesterday, to be debated through all its stages today. The way in which the Bill is being dealt with has broken new ground in the House. It is the Government's fault that the unanimity of condemnation of what happened at Omagh has not been translated into unanimity of support for the Bill. Perhaps, if we had all had time to reflect, consider and reasonably discuss amendments with Ministers, we would be a little less fractious in the Chamber this evening.
The concept of introducing the opinion of a senior police officer as admissible evidence is a novel and highly dangerous one. I echo the views of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who made a fine speech on that point. Of course, opinions are often given as evidence in court. Such opinions will normally be the evidence of people who are experts in their field and who have been called as witnesses to assist the court. They will not be witnesses for the defence or for the prosecution, but witnesses to assist the court. That is what expert witnesses are. Their duty is not to secure a conviction—

Mr. Grieve: indicated dissent.

Mr. Llwyd: I speak as a practising barrister. I shall gladly develop the point, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to argue it.

Mr. Grieve: I do not want to take issue with the hon. Gentleman, but I have to tell him that, in my experience, witnesses, including expert witnesses, are called for both prosecution and defence to give their opinion in criminal cases.

Mr. Llwyd: If the hon. Gentleman reflects on that, he will realise that their first duty is always to the court. He might like to check that and to apologise in due course.
The value and quality of experts' evidence vary from one case to another and the evidence is sometimes flawed. The one fundamental flaw is that such evidence is too partisan, and that is the crux of the matter. This evening, the cab driver who brought me from Paddington asked me what was going on in the House of Commons and I told him. I could not explain much, because I had not seen the Bill; I was not in a position to explain anything other than what I too had read in the press. His comment was, "How can the policeman be independent in those circumstances? He wants to secure a conviction."
That comment may or may not be right. I am not anti-police—I speak as the son of a policeman and the brother of a serving policeman—but at the core of my argument is whether we are to entrust police officers with that extra role, which I believe goes beyond the bounds.

In every walk of life, every trade and every profession, there are good and bad, but to have a bad policeman in this situation is to guarantee miscarriages of justice as surely as we are debating this point today.
After carnage such as that which occurred in Omagh, one can imagine a policeman being extremely anxious, upset and—quite naturally—angry. He would want to secure a conviction—to clear the books, as it were. That is the sort of background against which miscarriages of justice have occurred from the 1970s onward, which led to the formation of the new commission. That commission is still considering cases that are outstanding.
The Bill says that such evidence alone would have to be tested, and that is a welcome safeguard, but one can easily imagine that a defendant would feel disadvantaged if he had little evidence to support his case and a senior police officer was there to give an opinion on whether he was a member of a certain organization.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) blamed miscarriages of justice on what he called English juries. Far be it from me, as a Welshman, to defend English juries, but that is a ridiculous proposition, because if juries were persuaded by tainted evidence that was clearly not their fault.
We all know of the inequities involved in the sus laws and the way in which they worked in London, putting, in my view, unrestrained power in the hands of some police officers who misused it.
The Bill says that a senior police officer's evidence alone cannot secure a conviction, but the frightening thing is that such evidence, coupled with the exercise of what was, until very recently, an inalienable right to silence, would be enough to secure conviction. In other words, the opinion of an interested party, coupled with the suspect's silence, would be enough. That is a radical departure from the normal practice under the law obtaining in England and Wales.
I believe that the right to a fair trial is being undermined. We could all quote senior lawyers, civil liberties groups and others but, with all respect to them, we do not need their opinion because we need only look at the Bill and what it sets out to do. I am concerned, because people might exercise their right—or what was their right—to silence because they are not able to express themselves adequately or for a wealth of innocent reasons.
On clauses 5 to 7, I am not satisfied on the Mandela question. Consider, for example, the PKK, the Kurdish group fighting state terrorism and murder by Turkey. Its members might consider violence the only way of combating that terrorism—I do not know what they might be planning—in which case they would be in the firing line under the Bill. Their legitimate right to defend themselves from being gassed and bombed by the state would, it seems to me, be taken away. Other examples could include the Tamils. I am no supporter of violence for any political ends, but I live in a democracy in which we can argue our case rather than being bombed and gassed.
No one can deny that the events in Omagh were horrible, inexcusable and vile, or that measures should be taken to ensure that such an incident never happens again. With regret, I cannot in all conscience say that the Bill is the right vehicle. I believe that we should have had far more time in which to reflect and discuss. The great danger is that the very intention of the Bill, to defeat


terrorism, will be completely subverted, and that it will fan the flames and create martyrs once again. I am thinking of the internment in the 1970s, which was known as the IRA's recruiting sergeant. Legislation in haste may well lead us to repent at leisure. The trouble with the Bill is not simply that it could increase difficulties in Ireland but could also negate the basic civil rights of many people throughout the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members have spoken about the need to move in tandem with the Republic of Ireland. I agree, but surely that does not mean speeding downhill without any idea of a destination. There should be more opportunity to discuss the Bill because it is not receiving reasonable scrutiny. I raised that with the Prime Minister earlier. We are not doing our job properly and to do that more time should have been allowed.
Hurried law is often bad law, and in that context one thinks of the poll tax and the Child Support Agency. The consequences of getting the Bill wrong are far more serious than the consequences that flowed from those flawed and disreputable pieces of legislation. If we legislate in haste we shall repent at leisure. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I have great forebodings about the Bill.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: The debate was called at short notice, but it has been comprehensive and has shown the House at its best. Legitimate concerns about the speed at which the legislation is proceeding have been expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House. We share some of those concerns, but we support the measure. We are delighted that the legislation will need to be renewed each year. That is right, and it will allay many genuine fears. We suggest a further move. Before the measure is confirmed for another year, there should be a publicised review so that we can see whether there are any errors.
The Minister and I suspect that the measure will not be perfect in all respects. We all hope that it will not need to be renewed a year from now because the proscribed organisations will no longer exist. If it does need to be renewed, we need to be totally satisfied that any mistakes that have been made now can be rectified. I am sure that that would be in the interests of civil liberty and good law.
The debate has had several positive aspects. First, it has shown our Parliament united against the men of violence, appalled by what happened in Omagh, and determined to ensure that it never happens again. Secondly, all hon. Members are delighted that there is such close co-operation between our Government and security forces and those of the Republic of Ireland. Terrorism will be defeated only when there is complete co-operation north and south of the border. We are delighted to note that that seems to be taking place.
We shall vote in favour of Second Reading because, on balance, the first duty of the House, and certainly Government's first duty, is to ensure that ordinary people are properly protected. The modest measures supplement existing anti-terrorist legislation and will go some small way towards increasing the probability that innocent people will not be murdered. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) raised an important idea which must be explored further when he said that there should be an amnesty for farmers. That is a positive way forward.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) suggested that Conservative Members had some form of nostalgia for internment. I refute that straight away. Neither I nor any of my right hon. and hon. Friends are saying that internment should be reintroduced now. But what I said from the Dispatch Box last autumn when advising the Government that they were wrong to take internment off the statute book was that we all hope and pray that there will be a settlement and that, if there is a settlement, Irish history dictates that splinter groups from both communities will not support it, but rather use every effort to destabilise it and extreme violence. In those circumstances, it is just possible that internment should be used.
That is precisely why the Government of the Republic have not taken internment off the statute book. We believe that, when the Prime Minister said again and again on television during the past few weeks that it is hugely advantageous for British and Irish legislation to be identical in this area, it is a glaring anomaly that the Irish Government have kept internment on the statute book while, quite wrongly, this Government removed it last autumn.
It is not good enough to say that internment can be returned to the statute book in due course. The whole benefit of internment, if ever we need it, is the element of surprise, which will be lost if we have to come back to the House first, allowing those who might need to be interned to escape. I hope that the Government will think again and admit that they made an error of judgment which is now seen to be quite wrong.
I strongly agree with those hon. Members who have said that this legislation alone will not end violence. Another important element, which I was pleased to note that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary endorsed, is the total decommissioning of all arms and explosives. A small step forward was made when Mr. Adams yesterday renounced violence. A further small step forward was taken today when it was announced that Mr. Martin McGuinness would be the negotiator or representative of Sinn Fein-IRA with the Independent Commission on Decommissioning. We welcome both those small steps.
But Sinn Fein-IRA must match those tough words with equally firm action. We must see full co-operation with the commission and that very soon must mean the handing in of arms and explosives which Sinn Fein and the loyalist paramilitary parties signed up to on Good Friday as part of the Belfast agreement.
I do not require a response now on the detailed points that I am about to make, but I would appreciate the Minister taking note of them. When I was in Omagh last week, local councillors, the chamber of commerce and members of the public were anxious on three specific points, which I am sure they have raised with him but which I promised that I would underline today.
The first point is the that Tyrone County hospital is under threat of closure and local people believe that, if it had been closed, there would have been more deaths than in fact occurred. I hope that the future of the hospital will be sensitively considered by Ministers. Secondly, the people of Omagh believe that there is an urgent need for economic regeneration and financial help for the business community. Thirdly, those shopkeepers who have lost their properties are worried about betterment and the


additional costs that they will incur. I know that the Minister will do his best, along with this ministerial colleagues to allay those genuine fears from a brave community that is still in a state of shock and trauma.
On behalf of the official Opposition, I support the measure and shall be voting for it in the Division Lobby shortly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Adam Ingram.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the speech from the Front Bench, but as I understand it, the debate was to be open-ended. A number of us have been present throughout the debate but have been unable to contribute so far. Are you proposing to accept a Division at the conclusion of the speech from the Front Bench?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not comment on these matters. The hon. Gentleman should not question my judgment. I have few powers in the House, but I am entitled to call whomever I want. I have called Adam Ingram.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that exercise of your wise discretion.
The debate is conducted in the shadow of the Omagh bomb masterminded and exploded by the enemies of democracy. It also takes place in the shadow of the terrible events in Kenya, Tanzania and Cape Town. Against that background there can be no argument about the weight that the House attaches to today's debate.
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. Many have signalled their support for the measures that the Government seek to introduce, and I am grateful for their support. However, it is clear that there are a number of outstanding questions. I shall deal with as many as possible in the time available to me. In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke for an hour and a quarter. That was a result of the number of interventions that he took, and he addressed many of the doubts and concerns that hon. Members expressed.
I shall begin by dealing with the civil liberties concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), among others. The Government are committed to human rights throughout the United Kingdom. Measures in the Bill reflect European convention on human rights rulings and concerns about uncorroborated evidence, and provide a number of important safeguards. In our view, they do not conflict with international human rights obligations, nor do they enhance the risk of miscarriages of justice, as some hon. Members claimed during the debate.
I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who spoke on behalf of the official Opposition, for his general welcome for the Bill. I recognise the importance of his point about the procedure that is implied, and clearly it would have been better if matters had progressed in a different way. That

would have happened, had it not been for the horror of Omagh and the other reasons given by my right hon. Friend in his opening statement.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield raised, as did other hon. Members, the issue of internment. I make the point that I have made from the Dispatch Box in earlier debates, because it is worth making as part of the rounded judgment on the matter. If internment over the past 20 years had been deemed to be an effective tool against terrorism at a time when terrorism was at its height, it would have been used by the previous Government. It never was. A judgment had to be made about whether, by retaining internment on the statute book, anything was to be gained for the confidence-building approach that we were trying to move forward. A decision was taken to remove it, in the light of experience. It had never been used at a time of heightened terrorist activity.
We have said all along that we will reintroduce internment if there is a need to do so. Of course that does not need to be done on the basis of a specific and immediate threat. It could be brought back on to the statute book because of a perceived change of circumstances and could be used later, if need be.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) asked about the annual review of the legislation. He rightly pointed out that there is provision for that, and went on to ask about the mechanism and whether there would be a public review in advance of that. I can give him that assurance: that is the Government's intention. It is right that the legislation should be scrutinised and assessed not just by the House, but by the wider public.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the parts of the Bill that relate to Scottish law will be reviewed by the Scottish Parliament when it is formed and not by this House?

Mr. Ingram: The Bill for the Scottish Parliament is in place and we are entering into a debate on amendments to the Scottish legislation. That is a matter to which my hon. Friend may return if she so wishes, but clearly the first review—in March next year—will take place before the Scottish Parliament sits.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) raised in a number of interventions questions about the long title of the Bill, including issues relating to the release of prisoners. Nothing in the Bill affects the prisoner release programme under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. However, a prisoner cannot be released under that Act if he is likely to become a supporter of a specified organisation such as the Real IRA. If the RUC or any other UK force has intelligence to the effect that a prisoner will become a supporter of such an organisation, that information should be passed to the sentence review commissioners appointed under the Act and will be taken into account by them when considering whether to release a prisoner.

Mr. Cash: The Minister may note that he has just used the expression "a supporter of": that is not what clause 1 says. It refers to a person who "belongs to an organisation". The amendment in my name uses the words


that he just used—"or is a supporter of". I should be grateful for his confirmation that that amendment would be acceptable in those circumstances.

Mr. Ingram: If the hon. Gentleman's amendment is called for debate, we should discuss it during that debate rather than at this stage, given the progress on the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and others made very strong points about the confidence that would be created in the legislation if audio recording were included in clauses 1 and 2. We are actively looking at ways of implementing that suggestion. I would have liked to be able to announce this evening that we were implementing it. He is aware, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intimated, that we already have the provision on the statute book. We are introducing codes of practice and there was an intention to implement it at an early stage. We are now looking at ways in which that can be done as quickly as possible. I give my hon. Friend the commitment that every effort will be made to seek compliance with that approach.

Mr. Mullin: The phrase "as quickly as possible" has been around for some months now. I want to know whether people arrested under the Bill will be subject to audio recording when they are interviewed in holding centres.

Mr. Ingram: I am trying to give my hon. Friend as strong an assurance as I can on this point. I have taken on board the strong representations that he and others have made in this debate, and in the time available—the past few hours—I have been considering ways of implementing audio recording. That effort will continue in the days ahead.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) made a valuable contribution to the debate, and I welcome his general support for the measure, especially for the clauses relating to Northern Ireland. He is right in his assessment that the House would not accept the word of a senior police officer as being sufficient to prosecute. For that reason, the Bill has been drafted to bring other elements into play. He is also right in his assertion of the importance of co-operation between the United Kingdom Government and the Irish Government, and between the RUC and the Garda Siochana. He has played his part in bringing about much of the positive development in the co-operation between the Governments and the police forces in the two jurisdictions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made another of his strong and informed contributions. He brings considerable knowledge to the issue, and I thank him for his very robust defence of the measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North made several detailed points. He spoke specifically to the clause relating to forfeiture and asserted that it conflicted with the European convention on human rights. Clause 4 provides for forfeiture orders on conviction for membership of specified organisations. It is similar in its impact to section 13 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The legal advice that I have is that it does not breach the ECHR. My hon. Friend has his opinion, but our advice is different. In these cases, the trial will be concluded in the normal way.

The question of forfeiture arises only in the event of conviction. It will be considered case by case in the courts, and any person claiming to have an interest in the property has a right to be heard by virtue of clause 4(4).
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) also raised issues relating to the forfeiture elements of the Bill and to the safeguards for dependants. We shall probably be able to discuss that when we consider the Bill's remaining stages. However, I have checked on that very point, and I am advised that inclusion of specific safeguards is not necessary because the court will already take account of such matters. Again, we may want to deal with that in due course.
I thank the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) for his comments. He said that there was a need to recall Parliament—indeed, many right hon. and hon. Members commented on the correctness of that approach—and that there was a need to act in concert with the Irish Government. I noted his comments about internment. I think that I have responded to the remarks made by other hon. Members on that issue.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann made several specific points, one in relation to the recommendations that the Chief Constable of the RUC has said he would like to be implemented in law. All those issues are now being considered as part of the comprehensive review of anti-terrorism legislation, and they will be given due weight.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann also mentioned the Irish National Liberation Army and the Loyalist Volunteer Force and their current approach towards the ceasefire. Every encouragement will be given to those groups to prove that their declaration of a ceasefire means what they say, in words and deeds. If, on the evidence, we are satisfied that their ceasefire is unequivocal, they can be treated as other groups that have implemented unequivocal ceasefires.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann also asked about the effectiveness of the membership provisions in the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already given a frank assessment of this matter, drawing on the Chief Constable's views. Convictions are a matter for the courts. An independent judiciary is essential in any democratic country. It is the Executive's role to provide the legislative framework within which that judiciary works. The proposals are important additions to the anti-terrorist laws available to the RUC.
It will be important to assess how the legislation works. After all, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South has predicted that large numbers will be subject to the new powers, while others have argued that no one will be arrested. We have different opinions on how the legislation will take effect, and only time will tell. In any event, it will be done via the due process of law, not by the determination of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) asked two questions. First, he asked whether a conviction was possible on the basis of a superintendent's opinion and inference from a failure to mention a material fact. The answer to that question is yes.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asked whether subsection (10) of new section 2A in clause 1 would alter the law of evidence in Scotland. Scottish law normally requires two pieces of evidence for a conviction. The provision allows


for a conviction for membership to be on the basis of some evidence and an inference drawn from failure to mention a material fact, which makes the provision the same in Scotland as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Without it, the inference could not be taken into account in deciding whether the accused were guilty as charged. We may be able to debate that matter again at length when we deal with the remaining stages of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) raised a number of issues in a strong contribution to the debate. On the most important—the relevance of the inferences element of the Bill—the ability to draw such inferences will apply in any case in which the accused has been charged with the membership offence. The fact that other offences have been charged is not relevant. The inferences that can be drawn relate only to membership of a specified, proscribed organisation.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the disposal of property and what would happen to seized property that could not be disposed of under clause 4, the forfeiture clause. That is dealt with in the detailed regime in schedule 4 to the PTA. Property can be sold. A receiver can realise land and pay the proceeds to a proper officer—that is, a court clerk. Any balance in the hands of the officer is treated as a fine going into the public coffers. Of course, that is subject to any claim that another person might have over the property.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I think that he missed the point that I was trying to make about the inference aspect of the Bill, in so far as I was asking whether, because of the different times at which access to a solicitor is possible, the new provision would be complementary to the existing provisions, or whether it would have to be treated separately.

Mr. Ingram: I am probably still misunderstanding the point at this late stage. The inference cannot be brought into play until the accused has the opportunity to speak to a solicitor, which is an important protection for the individual in those circumstances. The point about inference is that it relates only to membership or alleged membership of an organisation, and can be used only in such circumstances. Clearly, an officer could be investigating other terrorist-related crimes when he comes across the possibility of membership. Those issues are separated out. The inferences to be drawn from silence relate only to the second element and not to the first. I hope that that has answered the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) asked about the continuing need for the measures in the Bill. Since it has been designed to deal with a specific set of circumstances, it will remain in force as long as it can be put to good effect. I mentioned the need for a comprehensive review of anti-terrorism legislation, which we are undertaking, and the Home Secretary has given assurances on that and on the annual review that will take place, in line with a published report.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned clauses 5 and 6. In deciding whether to bring a prosecution under those clauses, the authorities, including the Attorney-General,

will consider the public interest, the human rights situation in the country in which the offence is to be committed—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The buzz of conversation is making it extremely difficult to hear what the Minister is saying.

Mr. Ingram: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was saying that the human rights situation in the country in which the offence is to be committed may be a relevant factor in that consideration.
My hon. Friend also asked whether United Nations resolutions would be taken into account when the Attorney-General decides whether to prosecute. That might be a relevant factor. However, if the planned offence is non-political, such as child sex abuse, it may well not be. That is a matter for the Attorney-General.
Other hon. Members made similar points, asking whether, if a crime has taken place in a non-democratic country, prosecutions should not take place here. If a crime has taken place, the usual course would be a prosecution in the relevant country. However, if there is evidence of a conspiracy here to commit that offence, a prosecution here under the new provisions would be possible, assuming that the accused was within the United Kingdom jurisdiction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, among other things, that the Bill seemed to be based on the assumption that nothing had changed in Northern Ireland. I can tell him that the opposite is true. Almost everything has changed there. The whole political landscape has changed, and the whole approach to many of the groups that have been involved in violent actions has changed over recent months. Indeed, it is changing on a daily basis.
I am surprised that my hon. Friend makes that charge against my right hon. Friends and myself as we introduce the Bill. It is because there is a change and we have a new set of circumstances, because we have now specified organisations, and because specific small groups are now the only ones involved in violence, that we can take this course of what we hope will be effective action.
The Bill we seek to pass today comprises elements concerned with both criminal evidence and conspiracy. The measures on conspiracy are an important step in the fight against international terrorism and other international crime. The Bill closes off a loophole through which people engaged in planning terrorist and other criminal activities abroad can abuse this country's hospitality.
Making such conspiracies an offence will improve our ability to tackle the growing threat from international terrorists and other criminals. They will no longer be able to use this country as a base to plot their evil activities. The Bill will send a clear message to those who conspire to commit such crimes that we are committed to fighting them with all the means at our disposal. They will find no safe haven in the United Kingdom.
The provisions on criminal evidence will form a new and vital element in the Government's strategy for delivering to the people of Northern Ireland a secure and peaceful future. The new measures will support the political process and ensure that the laws applying north and south of the Irish border are in step, and that there is no hiding place for terrorism.
It is worth while looking for a moment at the pattern of bomb attacks by dissident terrorist groups since the Good Friday agreement on 10 April. In Lisburn, County Antrim, on 30 April, a 600 lb bomb was successfully defused by the Army. No group claimed responsibility. In the border town of Belleek on 9 May, two mortar tubes were discovered in the car park of an hotel near the police station. The Real IRA claimed responsibility.
On 15 May, the Continuity IRA claimed that it had abandoned a car and trailer bomb at Kinawley in County Fermanagh. Two mortars, containing between 100 lb and 150 lb of explosives, were recovered by the Army and made safe. On 16 May, the Army defused a bomb in Armagh, again close to the police station. The Real IRA claimed responsibility.
On 24 June, a 200 lb car bomb exploded in the centre of Newtownhamilton close to the police station. It caused more than £3 million-worth of damage to commercial and residential property. Let us be thankful that there were no serious injuries. The INLA claimed responsibility.
On 1 August, the Real IRA planted a bomb in Banbridge, and gave a completely inadequate 20-minute warning. The bomb, containing 500 lb of explosives, detonated, causing damage to property to the tune of nearly £4 million. Two police officers and 33 civilians were injured. Again, it was a miracle that there were no deaths.
Dissident groups have also been active in the Republic of Ireland and here in Britain. On 23 May, two cars travelling towards Jonesborough were stopped by the Garda Siochana and found to contain between 700 and 800 lb of home-made explosives and a number of mortar tubes. On 10 July, the Garda and the London Metropolitan police, in a joint operation, intercepted six primed fire bombs in the London area. That campaign culminated in the horrors of Omagh.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned the scale of the death and injury. In addition to the 28 lives lost and many hundreds injured, there is the impact of trauma on many of the relatives, those from the emergency services, and others caught up in one way or another in the dreadful events of 15 August. The personal loss and injury are uppermost in all our minds. The structure of Omagh also suffered a searing blow that will take time to rectify.
That is the backcloth against which the Bill is being considered. It makes a grim picture, but it shows not only the determination of some groups to cause mayhem, death and destruction and to bring down the Belfast agreement, but the determination and the success which the security forces—the Army, and the RUC and the Garda working in close co-operation—can claim. Without their professionalism, the position would be worse still.
Some hon. Members have made explicit and implicit criticisms of police officers during the debate. I ask them to reflect on the many unseen brave actions of the RUC and the security forces, who daily put their lives on the line in the fight against terrorism and in defence of our freedoms.
Obviously, we all oppose the aim of those who conspire and perpetrate evil to destroy the peace process. They care nothing for who or what they destroy in pursuit of their goal. We must not let their efforts succeed. We must stop them in their tracks. We must apprehend them, and, using the due and proper processes of law and the courts, we must see to it that we crush their operational capacity.
There must be no more atrocities like the one visited upon Omagh, now left with its heart, and the hearts of its people, ripped apart by evil thugs. This Government, the Irish Government and the heads of the respective police forces are united as never before in our determination to stamp out those who threaten, through terrorist actions, to deprive the people of Northern Ireland of the peace and prosperity that they so wish for and so much deserve.
The Bill will enable those terrorists who are aiming to wreck the Belfast agreement to be targeted. They are already isolated. Let there be no mistake about that. They have no support, north or south of the border. Their actions are against the will of the vast majority of the people in these islands. Parliament has a responsibility, and we owe it to the people to give the security forces the exceptional powers that they now need to deal with this aberration.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: rose in her place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 17, Noes 391.

Division No. 358]
[12.22 am


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
McAllion, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McDonnell, John


Best, Harold
McNamara, Kevin


Corbett, Robin
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Pollard, Kerry


 Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Sedgemore, Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Skinner, Dennis


Etherington, Bill
Tellers for the Ayes:


Grant, Bernie
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Mr. Dennis Canavan.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Blizzard, Bob


Alexander, Douglas
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Allan, Richard
Blunt, Crispin


Allen, Graham
Boateng, Paul


Amess, David
Borrow, David


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bradshaw, Ben


Atherton, Ms Candy
Brady, Graham


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Norman
Breed, Colin


Baldry, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Banks, Tony
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Bayley, Hugh
Browne, Desmond


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Browning, Mrs Angela


Begg, Miss Anne
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Beggs, Roy
Buck, Ms Karen


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Burden, Richard


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Burnett, John


Bercow, John
Burns, Simon


Beresford, Sir Paul
Butler, Mrs Christine


Bermingham, Gerald
Butterfill, John


Berry, Roger
Cable, Dr Vincent


Betts, Clive
Caborn, Richard






Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fox, Dr Liam


Cann, Jamie
Fraser, Christopher


Caplin, Ivor
Gale, Roger


Cash, William
Gapes, Mike


Caton, Martin
Gardiner, Barry


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)



Gibb, Nick


Chaytor, David
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chidgey, David
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chope, Christopher
Goggins, Paul


Clappison, James
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gorrie, Donald



Gray, James


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Green, Damian


Clelland, David
Greenway, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grieve, Dominic


Coaker, Vernon
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cohen, Harry
Grocott, Bruce


Coleman, Iain
Grogan, John


Collins, Tim
Hague, Rt Hon William


Colman, Tony
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Connarty, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cooper, Yvette
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Cotter, Brian
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cousins, Jim
Hammond, Philip


Cran, James
 Hanson, David


Cranston, Ross
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Crausby, David
Harris, Dr Evan



Hawkins, Nick


Cummings, John
Hayes, John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Curry, Rt Hon David
Heald, Oliver


Darvill, Keith
Healey, John


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hepbum, Stephen


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Heppell, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Dean, Mrs Janet
Home Robertson, John


Denham, John
Hood, Jimmy


Dobbin, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Hope, Phil


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Hopkins, Kelvin


Donohoe, Brian H
Horam, John


Doran, Frank
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dowd, Jim
Hoyle, Lindsay


Duncan, Alan
Humble, Mrs Joan


Edwards, Huw
Hunter, Andrew


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Hurst, Alan


Ennis, Jeff
Iddon, Dr Brian


Evans, Nigel
Illsley, Eric


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Ingram, Adam


Faber, David
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Fallon, Michael
Jamieson, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Jenkins, Brian


Fisher, Mark
Johnson Smith,


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Flint, Caroline
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Foulkes, George
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald





Keeble, Ms Sally
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Keetch, Paul
O,Hara, Eddie


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Olner, Bill


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
O'Neill, Martin


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Öpik, Lembit


Key, Robert
Organ, Mrs Diana


Kidney, David
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ottaway, Richard


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Page, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Paice, James


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Paisley, Rev Ian


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Palmer, Dr Nick


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Paterson, Owen


Lansley, Andrew
Pearson, Ian


Laxton, Bob
Pendry, Tom


Leslie, Christopher
Pickles, Eric


Letwin, Oliver
Pickthall, Colin


Levitt, Tom
Pike, Peter L


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Pond, Chris


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Pope, Greg


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Linton Martin
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Livsey,Richard
Prior, David



Prosser, Gwyn


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Purchase, Ken


Lock, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Loughton, Tim
Quinn, Lawrie


Love, Andrew
Raynsford, Nick


McAvoy, Thomas
Redwood, Rt Hon John


McCabe, Steve
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Rendel, David


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Robathan, Andrew


McIsaac, Shona
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McLoughlin, Patrick
Rogers, Allan


McNulty, Tony
Rooker, Jeff


MacShane, Denis
Rooney, Terry


McWalter, Tony
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McWilliam, John
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Maginnis, Ken
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Rowlands, Ted


Major, Rt Hon John
Roy, Frank


Mallaber, Judy
Ruane, Chris


Mandelson, Peter
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Maples, John
Ruffley, David


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Martlew, Eric
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Mates, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Maxton, John
Salmond, Alex


May, Mrs Theresa
Salter, Martin


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Savidge, Malcolm


Merron, Gillian
Sawford, Phil


Michael, Alun
Sayeed, Jonathan



Sheerman, Barry


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Miller, Andrew
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moss, Malcolm
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mountford, Kali
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Mudie, George
Snape, Peter


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Soley, Clive


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Spellar, John


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Spring, Richard


Norman, Archie
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Norris, Dan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Oaten, Mark
Steen, Anthony






Stevenson, George
Tipping, Paddy


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Touhig, Don


Stinchcombe, Paul
Tredinnick, David


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Trend, Michael


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Trickett, Jon


Streeter, Gary
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Stringer, Graham
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Tyler, Paul


Stunell, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Viggers, Peter


Swayne, Desmond
Vis, Dr Rudi


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Walter, Robert


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wareing, Robert N



Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Watts, David


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Webb, Steve


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
White, Brian


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Willetts, David


Thompson, William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Timms, Stephen






Willis, Phil
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wills, Michael
Wyatt, Derek


Wilson, Brian
Yeo, Tim


Winnick, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Woodward, Shaun
Tellers for the Noes:


Woolas, Phil
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Clause 1

EVIDENCE AND INFERENCES: GREAT BRITAIN

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Before we embark on the Committee stage, I wish to make it clear to the Committee that we are working on the basis of the amendment paper as at 9.30 pm today and the revised selection list that relates to the amendment paper.

Mr. Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 1, line 15, after 'to' insert
'or is a supporter of'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, we may discuss amendment No. 78, in page 1, line 16, leave out
'belonged at a particular time to'
and insert
'at a particular time belonged to or was a supporter of'.

Mr. Cash: I support the Bill for all the reasons that have already been given in the debate, but, when we consider the manner in which the Bill has been introduced, the extraordinary confusion that existed yesterday, when a draft Bill was made available and, subsequently, the Bill itself was properly made available only at 2.30 this afternoon, and all the other things that have already been said, the reality is that the Bill requires very careful examination. An enormous amount depends on—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There are still far too many conversations taking place in all quarters of the Committee. May we now listen to the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Cash: In his winding-up speech, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), used the same words that I have used in the amendment, for a very good reason. The clause lays down the basis on which organisations will be proscribed. The provisions apply
if a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent states in oral evidence that in his opinion the accused—

(a) belongs to an organisation which is specified, or
(b) belonged at a particular time to an organisation which was then specified."
The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which we passed on 28 July, relates directly to the issue, because it deals with the early release of prisoners. That Act uses the word "supporter". It is well established that the word "support" means much more than merely belonging to an organisation. It is clear to anyone who has eyes to see that it is possible for people who support an organisation to

avoid becoming members of it so that they can provide support without being caught within the four walls of the Act.
I have the support of the Minister, who used the word "supporter" in this context on Second Reading. I strongly agree with him and I am trying to be helpful and constructive in creating a framework that will work. The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 also uses the word "supporter". In the rush to draft the Bill, the issue may have been overlooked. I argue strongly that the word should be included.
Terrorist organisations are clever and cunning. They rely on the interplay of words. They are past masters at weaving their way in and out of the liability that will attach to them under this Bill, the 1998 Act or any other legislation on terrorism. Was the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) entirely satisfied that those who spoke for Sinn Fein could automatically be regarded as spokesmen for the IRA when they said that the conflict was over, or words to that effect?
Terrorist groups have long been adept at developing covert relationships with those who front their organisations—relationships that could involve giving funds or providing some other form of support to ensure that the organisation was able to continue—without their being members of the organisation.
Furthermore, I notice that the provisions of the Irish legislation, which I believe went through today, create a new offence called "the unlawful collection of information". If the Government are suggesting that we should, as far as possible, be on all fours with the legislation in the Irish Republic, I suggest that the offence now being created—that of collecting, recording or possessing information likely to be useful to members of unlawful organisations in the commission of serious offences—is a form of provision that relates to support for an unlawful organisation within the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Bill, but would not be directed exclusively at persons who are members of that organisation.
I do not think that I need enlarge on that point. I have made a simple point and it is open to the Government to make their case as to why, in the light of the Minister of State's remarks, the amendment should not be passed. I do not need to repeat myself. The amendment is important and I strongly suggest that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench and the Government accept the amendment for the reasons that I have given.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I call Mr. Paul Murphy—sorry, Mr. Adam Ingram.

Mr. Ingram: In many ways, I wish that it were Mr. Paul Murphy.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has made several points about the need to amend the Bill to bring the concept of a "supporter" into play. His amendment would allow a police superintendent to give evidence that the accused is a supporter of a specified organisation, but the new evidence provision in clause 1 regarding members of a specified proscribed organisation has been


laid down as a means of specifically targeting the wider offence of membership of a proscribed organisation. It is felt that it would not be appropriate in the context of that targeting to widen the basis of the offence to encompass support for an organisation, which is not, in itself, an offence.
In accepting the hon. Gentleman's amendment, we would be creating a new offence; but, in this legislation, we are trying to be extremely specific and targeted and to ensure that those who are members of specified organisations are brought to justice and receive their just deserts in a court of law. Therefore, I resist the amendment primarily on the basis that we do not believe that there is a need to widen the scope of the legislation.

Mr. Öpik: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman may speak after I sit down, and so extend the debate if necessary.
On Second Reading, we heard criticism from right hon. and hon. Members of the measures in the Bill.

Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ingram: I am trying to explain that the Government are extremely specific and targeted in what we are trying to achieve.
Extending the legislation to cover supporters of proscribed groups might not achieve our objective, which is to take out those who are actively involved and engaged in illegal activities. Indeed, extending the Bill to supporters might encourage others to begin to support the organisation, because it would extend the area of grievance, which is something of which we have to be conscious. We must not encourage the creation of a new republican family who are prepared to take actions such as those seen at Omagh and elsewhere.

Mr. Cash: Does the Minister not accept that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 is absolutely specific? I have never heard a Minister reject an amendment that is perfectly clear, that uses words that he himself used on Second Reading and that is reflected in an Act of Parliament that received Royal Assent only a few weeks ago, on 28 July. That Act used exactly the same expression in relation to eligibility for release. It said:
A prisoner may apply to Commissioners for a declaration that he is eligible for release"—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I appreciate that we are in Committee, but this is a very long intervention. The hon. Gentleman must bring it to a quick conclusion.

Mr. Cash: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Has the Minister finished his speech?

Mr. Ingram: Yes.

Mr. Cash: In which case, I am replying to the Minister.
The Minister said absolutely nothing about any of my points. He simply said that the Government wanted a targeted provision. For the reasons that I have given, membership of an organisation is not sufficient in itself to determine whether a person is engaged in terrorist activities.
It is perfectly clear from the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 that, if the word "supporter" is used in that context, it is precisely because the Government know perfectly well that being a supporter of such an organisation is a strong reason for being caught within the framework of that Act, and there is no reason whatever, in either logic or common sense, why the same criteria should not be applied in respect of the Bill. The Minister gave no indication whatever why he draws the distinction.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): Yes, he did.

Mr. Cash: In so far as he made an attempt to flannel, he said that he thought that there might be an encouragement to other people to become supporters. Exactly the same point could be applied to the way in which the word is used in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.
I strongly suggest to the Minister that, if and when it is established in due course that supporters have participated in what would, under the amendment, be criminal acts, and that, by default, they have been allowed to get away with terrorist activities, the responsibility will lie with the Government, and not with the mover of the amendment.

Mr. Beggs: Would the driver of a getaway car, taking a bomber to a safe house, be reasonably described as a supporter, and does the hon. Gentleman agree that such a person should be subject to due process of law?

Mr. Cash: Emphatically yes, in my view. The person might be able to put up a defence—that he had been coerced, for example—but the fact remains that some people deliberately disguise the fact that they are members of an organisation. It is inconceivable that the Government should sell the pass in this part of the Bill. I do not know where their amour-propre comes from. What is the point of deliberately avoiding the opportunity to introduce words that were used in an Act passed only a few weeks ago for exactly the same kind of purpose, and allowing people who have taken part in a bombing, for example, to get off scot free? It is inconceivable. It is extraordinary, to my way of thinking, that the Minister can try to get away with that.

Mr. Öpik: Compared with our Bill, the Irish Offences Against the State (Amendment) Bill seems to have been written by the Plain English Campaign. Clause 6 of that Bill makes it an offence to be at any level in a proscribed organisation and the punishment is life imprisonment. Have that clause and others been considered in the spirit of marching in step with decisions in the Irish Parliament?

Mr. Ingram: Many amendments have to be considered and we have tried to make progress that will satisfy everyone's needs. Support for a proscribed organisation is not an offence, because it makes no sense to make support


for a subset of proscribed organisations, in this case specified organisations, an offence. Much consideration was given to the Republic of Ireland legislation but, of course, we are dealing with our own specific measures. I do not know what else I can say about the matter.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is well known for detailed picking of the bones of everything. I am not prepared to move on the case that he has made and I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 21, leave out 'in England and Wales'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 10, in page 2, line 21, leave out 'in England and Wales'.
No. 13, in page 2, leave out lines 44 to 49.
No. 79, in page 2, line 46 after 'belonging' insert `having belonged'.
Government amendments Nos. 61 and 62.

Mr. Gorrie: Amendments Nos. 3, 10 and 13 go together. We seek to clarify the position in Scotland because the Bill seems to alter Scotland's laws, which have hitherto always demanded corroborative evidence. Our concerns are shared by the Law Society of Scotland, which states in its letter to us that the Bill undermines the rule of corroboration that applies in Scotland.
As the Bill stands, a person can be found guilty of membership of an organisation on the say-so of a police officer or on the basis of some other evidence, plus the inference that is to be drawn from the person's failure to say various things. It may be a pedantic point, but an inference is not a fact and is not corroboration. As I understand it, the law of Scotland demands two witnesses to testify to facts that are relevant to the point to prove a person's guilt. The Bill changes that, to make one statement by a police officer plus an inference from a person's silence on certain matters sufficient. That is a material change in Scottish law, and it is a serious issue.
If there had been more time and the Bill had been presented in the normal way, we would have produced an amendment with better wording. As there was not enough time, we propose to delete clause 1(10) and to make two consequential amendments elsewhere to remove the drastic change in Scotland's law. One of my hon. Friends will propose an amendment to widen the issue so as to obtain evidence in addition to the police statement and the inference that will be drawn from a failure to speak. At the moment, we are trying to establish the proposals for Scottish law, because this material change should not be made lightly. We look forward to the Minister's reassurance on the issue.

1 am

Dr. Godman: Amendment No. 13 seeks to remove subsection (10) of new section 2A in clause 1. I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) said about the principle of corroboration, which is the cornerstone of the Scottish criminal investigation system.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that, to some extent, the principle of corroboration, which is such an important element in Scots law, is diminished by subsection (10)? I have no doubt that, given the opportunity, professors of Scots law in Scottish universities would argue for years over the wording of subsection (10). As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is not a lawyer, and in that regard we have something in common. But we are concerned, as, I am sure, are my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), because it is important not to diminish that significant element in Scots law.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that a suspect in a Scottish police station is advised of his right to remain silent when he is charged? I do not need to remind the Minister, but others perhaps should be reminded, that, in a Scottish police station, the suspect does not have the right to have a lawyer present during an investigation. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), when I reminded him of that, said that perhaps in this instance Scots law should come into line with that which pertains in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Perhaps that should be taken on board by the Government.
Will the Minister also confirm that, as a result of this legislation, the caution delivered by Scots police officers will have to be differently worded, in contrast to the caution that is part of established police procedures? If so, we need a word or two about that.
I also remind the Minister—if he needs it—that interviews of suspects in Scottish police stations are always subject to audio recordings. If we are to bring our laws in the two different legal systems in the British Isles into line in terms of the best interests of civil liberties, perhaps audio recordings should be introduced in Northern Ireland.
There are concerns here. Is there a diminution in the principle of corroboration in subsection (10)? Is there to be a change in the caution given by police officers to suspects? Can the Minister offer us the possibility that Scots law will be changed to bring it into line with this legislation where a suspect has the right to legal representation when being investigated?
I seek that clarification from the Minister, because, as I told him and others earlier, I have serious reservations about the legislation and the likelihood that it might harm people's civil liberties.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Committee is entitled to an explanation of the difference between the law in Scotland and that in England and Wales. Subsection (6) refers to the situation in England and Wales. I must admit that I find it easier to understand the situation there as described in the Bill, compared with the part of the Bill relating to Scotland.
Subsection (6) states:
the accused shall not be committed for trial in England and Wales, or be found to have a case to answer or be convicted, solely on the base of inferences
relating to the question
whether the accused belongs or belonged at a particular time to a specified organisation".


There is no corresponding clear statement about the situation in Scotland. Indeed, subsection (10) states, rather surprisingly in my opinion:
where the court draws an inference as mentioned in subsection (6) above any evidence that he belongs to the organisation shall be sufficient evidence of that matter.
How on earth can "any evidence" be "sufficient evidence"? Will the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence be classified as sufficient evidence to convict someone? I find that difficult to understand.
A situation could arise in a court in Scotland in which a superintendent said, "In my opinion this man or this woman is a member of a particular organisation," and some inference was drawn from the silence of the accused person. That would be deemed sufficient evidence to convict. Surely there ought to be stronger evidence before a conviction is obtained.
I could see a case, although I would not agree with it, for the Government saying that any evidence that a person belongs to a particular organisation shall be admissible evidence of that matter, but to say that any evidence is sufficient evidence is a contradiction of one of the basic premises of natural justice—that there ought to be sufficient evidence before a person is convicted.
It is a pity that neither the Lord Advocate nor the Solicitor-General for Scotland is a Member of this House, and it is a disgrace that there is no one from the Scottish Office on the Front Bench to give us an explanation of what legal advice, if any, the Scottish Office has had from the Scottish Law Officers. I realise that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), represents a Scottish constituency, but he, like me, is not learned in Scots law. We are entitled to a detailed explanation of the legal advice that was given to the Government in the drafting of the subsection.
I notice that my name has been appended to the Liberal Democrat amendment. By coincidence, I happened to table an amendment identical to the Liberal Democrats' amendment, and the Clerks of the House simply added my name to the Liberal Democrats' amendment. I have no objection, but I say that by way of explanation. Subsection (10) should be deleted, unless we are given a satisfactory account of the reason for its inclusion.

Mrs.Fyfe: I shall address my remarks to amendment No. 13. It is an important matter, but all of us discussing the amendment must beg the indulgence of the Committee at this hour of the night. I appreciate that the present wording is an improvement on the original. However, there is still the huge matter of corroboration contained in this part of the Bill. As has been said, there could be endless debates among professors of Scots law about whether the provision amounts to a diminution of the right of corroboration, which is a centuries-old aspect of Scottish law. It is certainly arguable that inference from someone's silence plus any old piece of evidence, no matter how worthless, is hardly the strength that we have at present in Scots law, in which corroboration is required.
This loss is important in itself. It might be the case that the matter can be debated among legal experts, but in that case we should not be rushing tonight to legislate to remove the requirement for corroboration when we have not had the benefit of that expertise.
I should also point out that the law of corroboration is centuries old. It has seen us through wars, civil riots, commotions and disturbances, and there was no diminution of the corroboration rule during those times. I do not diminish the dreadful events of Omagh for one moment, but we have been through dreadful times these past centuries, and we have not taken this step.
There has not been time for any substantial debate. We have not had the benefit of advice from the Front Bench, from people who know Scots law inside out, or from those whose expertise lies in that area. For those reasons, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State to withdraw this part of the Bill so that we can have a proper look at it.
Earlier tonight, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that the Bill would be reviewed by the Scottish Parliament. I did not mean to spring something on him unexpectedly, but the matter needs to be clarified. The Scotland Bill provides that measures to deal with terrorism remain with the United Kingdom Parliament, but it also says that Scots law and the police are matters for the Scottish Parliament.
We need clarity on that aspect of the Bill. In what way will any further look at the Bill in six months or on a yearly basis be undertaken? Will it be done in this Parliament, or will it be the job of the Scottish Parliament? I hope that the matter does not arise in the first place, and that the Government will withdraw this part of the Bill so that we can have a more careful look at it, and we do not simply throw out something that has existed for centuries because we are worried about the current circumstances, when we have gone through so much before.

Mr. Connarty: I adhered to the request of the Whips not to make a Second Reading speech, but I still have to put my points on the amendments in context. I make the point that we try to counter terrorism with the rule of law so the law must be effective, naturally, but also as transparent as possible so that it continues to gather the support of the people who trust us to make it the best opposition to terrorism and violence. We are looking not for infallibility but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, credibility. In the part of the Bill that relates to Scotland, we have a problem of credibility.
I remind the Committee that I asked a couple of questions in an intervention. One was the simple question whether the opinion of a police superintendent that a person was in one of the named organisations plus the person's silence would lead to a conviction. We had a clear statement from the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office my hon. Friend the Member for East Kidbride (Mr. Ingram) that that was the case. I then asked a question about clause 1(10) on Scots law. I wished to establish that the same simple equation—the opinion of a police officer and silence—could lead to a conviction in Scotland. That is why I and other hon. Members tabled an amendment. We wished to raise the matter specifically and name the word "corroboration", which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) said was normally evidence from two different sources, two pieces of fact, or separate pieces of evidence for the same fact. Unfortunately, subsection (10) does not do that. It is such a massive change in Scots law that the simple amendment deserved some consideration by the Government. The


amendment stated that in Scotland we would require corroboration before the second part of subsection (10) would apply. The second part states:
where the court draws an inference as mentioned in subsection (6) above any evidence that he belongs to the organisation shall be sufficient evidence of that matter.
The amendment would change that part to take account of what for centuries has been the spirit and fact of Scots law, namely that evidence must be corroborated from two different sources.
1.15 am
I welcome some of the amendments, but feel that some are insufficient while others perhaps go too far. I welcome Government amendment No. 61, but Government amendment No. 62 needs to be explained because it seems to include conviction for past membership of an organisation.
I can think of three recent occasions when people have come to see me. They were active members of the Ulster Volunteer Force when the UVF had not pledged itself to a non-violent course. They fled Ireland when the last ceasefire finished. The UVF demanded that they be reactivated, but in the meantime, those people had put lives together and fled to Scotland.
If someone in, for example, the Real IRA had decided before Omagh to get out and to flee to Scotland, under Government amendment No. 62 he could be charged with having been a member of that organisation. Although he might not have taken part in or supported any terrorist activity, he might still be gaoled.
Amendment No. 10 deals with the inference from silence. It would remove the words "in England and Wales" and therefore would extend to Scotland, but I do not see the opinion of the officer dealt with in any other amendment.

Dr. Godman: In attempting to be fair minded in our criticisms of the legislation, we ought to refer to subsection (4)(b). At least now in Scotland such a suspect, before being questioned, would be permitted to consult a solicitor. Presumably, even a solicitor who was only half alive would urge a client to deny being a member of a proscribed organisation rather than to exercise his right to remain silent.

Mr. Connarty: That may well be the case, but the point is that one has to lie if one is a member of a proscribed organisation rather than remain silent and, as happens in the United States of America, not have one's guilt inferred from that silence.
In respect of Scotland, there is nothing to address the opinion of the police officer. Amendment No. 13 would delete all of subsection (10). That is inadequate because, if I interpret it correctly, that would mean that the Bill did not extend to Scotland. That is not the solution that we are seeking, which is to insert corroboration into the process rather than remove Scotland from the Bill's jurisdiction. An amendment that was not selected would have allowed the question of corroboration to be dealt with by the Government, in the hope that they would respect the tradition.
Our credibility will be undermined if we proceed with the Bill as it stands. In one fell swoop, we will retract from the process of law in Scotland the need to have corroborated evidence. That will lead people to worry that, if corroboration is not needed for this legislation, other criminals—perhaps drug traffickers—could be dealt with without corroboration. That would erode the very basis of Scottish law. I am disappointed that corroboration is not being dealt with. Perhaps the Government will think seriously during the Committee stage about how they might take that point on board.

Mr. John McAllion: The amendments deal with the admissibility of evidence that is not at present allowed in Scottish courts, which is that the opinion of a senior police officer should constitute evidence of an accused's membership of an illegal organisation and that an inference can be drawn that any silence on the part of the accused about belonging to such an organisation constitutes guilt.
The problem centres on the inference to be drawn from the silence of the accused. The position in Scotland is different from that in England. In Scots law, there is no general right for the courts to draw inferences from the silence of the accused. Only in specific circumstances can such inferences been drawn in Scottish courts. The Lord Advocate told me that those include a judicial examination before a sheriff on petition because, in such circumstances, the accused has the right to be represented by a solicitor. Indeed, that is the only occasion on which inferences can be drawn from such a silence in Scots law. It is different in England and Wales, where there is a much wider right to draw inferences from the accused's silence.
Owing to that difference, under the original draft of the clause the accused could be found guilty in Scottish courts solely on the evidence of a senior police officer, who asserted that he or she was a member of an illegal organisation. To deal with that problem, the Government introduced subsection (10) of new section 2A, in clause 1, which brings the position in Scotland into line with that elsewhere in England and Wales, so that, before a guilty verdict can be found, the evidence of the police officer has to be corroborated by the inference to be drawn from the silence of the accused. With the inclusion of subsection (10), the position in Scotland would be better than it might have been, but it would also be much worse than it is at present. That seems to be the problem.
It would be wrong to support amendment No. 13, which would make matters worse by withdrawing subsection (10), leaving the position in Scotland much worse than that in England in Wales. One could then be found guilty in Scotland simply on the basis of the evidence of a senior police officer and no one in the Committee wants that. Equally, it would be pointless to support amendments Nos. 3 and 10, which are entirely irrelevant to the position in the courts in Scotland. Therefore, I cannot support the Opposition amendments.
I must take this opportunity to protest about the weakening of the Scots law of corroboration. Undoubtedly, the clause represents such a weakening of that law, which has been around for a long time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) said. That is particularly important in respect of Northern Ireland because, as many hon. Members will know,


Scotland is in many ways closer to Northern Ireland than any other part of the United Kingdom. In Scotland, we find both the Unionist and the nationalist traditions, particularly in the west. There is much contact between Scotland and Northern Ireland and, on occasion, it is illegal and of a terrorist nature.
I recognise the Government's need to remain vigilant, through the police and the courts, to ensure that they can control any terrorist activity between Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, the real question that we should be asking ourselves is whether the measures weaken or strengthen the fight against terrorism in Scotland. I have to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that the banned organisations included in the Bill have virtually no support anywhere in Scotland. He will know that Celtic park in Glasgow is a place where one is likely to find much affinity with the nationalist cause in Ireland. Recently, at a match at Celtic park, there was a minute's silence in respect for those who had lost their lives at Omagh. Almost 50,000 people were present and only four idiots tried to disrupt the silence by shouting out. All four were thrown out of the ground and roundly booed by the rest of the supporters of both Celtic and Dundee United.
There is evidence to show that those people have no support anywhere in the United Kingdom. We have to ask ourselves whether, if we create injustices, we will begin to change that balance. If we begin to arrest and imprison innocent people and to deny to accused people the civil and legal rights that currently exist, will we change the balance and begin to build support for terrorist organisations of that sort—support that does not at present exist? It seems to me that accepting police opinion as evidence in a court of law—something that is not acceptable in Scots law at present—represents a serious weakening of that law and the rights of the accused under it.
Similarly, denying the right of silence is much more difficult to do in Scots law, but it will now be made much easier as a result of the changes in the Bill. Finally, withdrawing the presumption of innocence, which is not done in Scots law now but will be done in future if the clause is upheld, represents a further weakening.
Weakening the legal and civil rights of the individual citizens of this country is not the way to tackle terrorism. In fact, it will be counter-productive. That is why I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister winds up the debate he will tell us whether the Scottish Parliament, which will begin to take over control of Scots law next year, will have the right to review the legislation.
I know that prevention of terrorism is a matter for this House, but the clause deals with the very narrow ground of the admissibility of evidence before a Scottish court, and whether the accused in Scottish law has the right to silence and to the presumption of innocence. So far as I am concerned, after next year that should be a matter for the Scottish Parliament and for nobody else.

Mr. Ingram: We have had a good and detailed debate. I can tell all my hon. Friends from Scotland who have contributed to the debate that the part of the Bill with which we are dealing has been subject to the robust scrutiny of Scottish lawyers. Obviously there will be Scottish lawyers who disagree with the import of what we are trying to achieve—but it seems to me that it is ever thus with lawyers; the minute we hear one opinion we shall also hear another. That applies outside Scotland, too.
In drafting the legislation, we have tried to bring all parts of the United Kingdom into a clear framework. Scotland had to be included, because the threat applies throughout the United Kingdom, and has to be dealt with accordingly.
My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked about the role of the Scottish Parliament. Like all anti-terrorist legislation, the Bill concerns a reserved matter. It falls into the reserved area and is therefore to be dealt with by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
I suggest to my hon. Friends that they could have had that debate when the appropriate legislation to establish the Scottish Parliament was going through. If they had been able to persuade others that the envisaged arrangements were not appropriate, suitable amendments would have been made. However, as terrorism knows no borders and no boundaries, we need United Kingdom legislation, and we must ensure that its application under the various jurisdictions within the United Kingdom is mutually compatible.
Terrorism is an evil and a menace. It may have particular effect at a particular time in one particular part of the United Kingdom, but at any time it could be visited upon other areas, as has happened with England in the past. For a variety of reasons, we have been able to avoid it in Scotland, but that does not mean that people of evil intent will not bring their terrorism to my homeland, and in drafting legislation we must always be conscious of that.
I shall now deal with the amendments. Amendments Nos. 3 and 10 are defective because they would extend reference to committal to Scotland, which would be inappropriate because of the criminal law that applies there. The drafting makes them defective, so on that basis I cannot ask the Committee to accept them. Clearly, they would not comply with a major element of Scottish law.
Amendment No. 13 would deny a court in Scotland the ability to convict on the basis of inferences drawn under the Bill and any other evidence supporting those inferences. The provisions of clause 1 are designed to provide a Great Britain-wide scheme whereby the courts in the various GB jurisdictions can act on inferences drawn from silence in another part of Great Britain. We believe subsection (10) to be sensible and necessary for the proper working of the clause in Scotland, so that a court may take inferences fully into account without being authorised to convict purely on the basis of inferences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East made a strong point in support of part of that argument: he argued that acceptance of amendment No. 13 would seriously diminish the status of Scottish law, and should therefore be resisted. He made other points, which I shall try to deal with. However, on the basis of the arguments that I have made, I ask the Committee to resist amendment No. 13.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister explain the words in subsection (10):
any evidence … shall be sufficient evidence"?

Mr. Ingram: Any evidence judged by the court would be sufficient evidence. Like my hon. Friend, I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me, as a layman, that it is for the


court to decide what it deems to be suitable and appropriate evidence to be taken into account. Legislation should not say what would constitute such evidence. Therefore, the term "any evidence" is something that is brought forward for consideration by the court of law, and it is judged by those sitting in judgment—and, in Scotland, the trial is likely to be a jury trial. Therefore, "any evidence" is that which is deemed appropriate by the court to be considered.

Mr. Connarty: Would that evidence be sufficient evidence if it was only the opinion of a superintendent of police—in a Scots court?

Mr. Ingram: Of itself, no.

Mr. Connarty: Corroboration?

Mr. Ingram: Perhaps what I say when I come to the issue relating to corroboration or supporting evidence will deal with that. However, before I move on to that, may I deal with—

Mr. Canavan: Am I correct in understanding that subsection (10) means that any evidence that a person belongs to a proscribed organisation shall be sufficient evidence that he or she belongs to that proscribed organisation, so that even the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence shall be deemed to be sufficient evidence for a conviction?

Mr. Ingram: Well, it really is for the court to judge the strength or weakness of evidence that has been advanced to it. It is not for us in this place to decide the value or otherwise of evidence, because the judgment must be made in the court of law. In the Bill we are merely building a framework that allows those matters to be proceeded with so as to allow people to be brought to justice for their involvement as part of a specified organisation. Any evidence is sufficient, but only where it corroborates inferences, so that, where an inference is being drawn, any other evidence could be deemed by the court to be sufficient. It can be, but it will not always be, sufficient, and that is for the court to decide.

Mr. Canavan: That is not what it says. It says "shall be".

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: rose—

Mr. Ingram: I give way to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Ross: If the word was "may" rather than "shall", the Minister's argument would have more force. His hon. Friends have raised a serious problem.

Mr. Ingram: I am considering that serious point, and I am trying to explain, as I go along, dealing with.

interventions as they arise. I am trying to explain that part of the Bill, why it exists and why we feel that it is important to ensure that Scotland is brought into compliance with the rest of GB and with the other jurisdictions affected by the legislation.

Mr. Foster: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ingram: I hope that my hon. Friend is a Scottish lawyer, because that may help us.

Mr. Foster: I am not a Scottish lawyer, but is it not the position that, in any event, the provision applies only when there is no statement by the accused? Surely any evidence that he or she is a member of an organisation would be better evidence than no evidence that he or she was not; so it applies only in circumstances in which there is no denial. Would that not be sufficient evidence in any event?

Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend has made a strong point, and I accept that it refers to the matter at stake, in terms of the way in which I have amended the original legislation. However, we must deal with other groups of amendments, including Government amendments. I shall deal with issues that were raised earlier in the debate that may answer points that have been raised, rather than responding to interventions.
Government amendments Nos. 61 and 62 propose minor changes that are necessary to ensure that the provisions have similar application in Scotland to their application in England and Wales. They reflect the potential for a jury to draw inferences from failure to mention a material fact when questioned, and the importance of ensuring that those who did belong to a specified organisation are caught in Scotland as well. They are not a result of rushed drafting per se, and do not reflect the potential for any number of other terrors; they are simply minor amendments to ensure that the law has a similar impact throughout Great Britain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said that subsection (10) had been inserted as a result of the need to reflect fully certain aspects of Scottish law, and that, when it was inserted, it did not reflect those aspects fully in relation to other features of the Bill. That is why we had to table amendments Nos. 61 and 62, which I ask the Committee to support.
A point was raised about a change in the caution provisions. Let me explain. The suspect will be warned, in appropriate language, of the effect of failure to answer questions: that is the way in which the caution will apply. As for the point about the diminution of corroboration requirements, there will be no such diminution. Simply treating inferences as one piece of evidence means that that is not the case. There is only one piece of evidence for which inference would be used.
As for the right to legal representation, the accused must be given an opportunity to consult a solicitor before inferences can be drawn; otherwise, there is no change. I stress that inferences alone are not sufficient evidence, but, if corroborated, they can be taken into account. That is an important protection for those who are charged.
The Bill does not say that any evidence is sufficient evidence; it says that evidence on the issue at trial, together with inference, can be sufficient evidence.
I have tried to deal with the detailed parts of the Bill. Hon. Members may want to continue the debate, but I think that we have examined the issues fully, especially in view of that other matters that remain to be considered.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton—Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ingram: No. I ask the Committee to accept the recommendations before it. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister does not need to give a reason; he is not giving way. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Gorrie: I am pleased that our amendment, if somewhat defective, has effectively acted as a tap which has allowed five excellent speeches from Labour Members to gush forth and spread light—to mix my metaphors—on this subject. Subsection (10) is remarkably badly worded. It may have been written by some robust Scots lawyers, but I do not think that they understand the English tongue.
I entirely agree with the interpretation of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)—perhaps because we both come from a teaching background. Contrary to what the Minister said, the Bill states that
any evidence that he belongs to the organisation shall be sufficient".
The Minister was contending that that was not what was meant, but clearly it is.
The clause is extremely badly written, but, because of the time constraints and because our amendment is imperfect, we will not push it to a vote. Whether some wiser lawyers in the House of Lords may consider the matter worth pursuing, I do not know. Unfortunately the two Scottish Liberal Democrat QCs were revolving in aeroplanes over Orkney, and we could not get their advice. This is an important issue and I hope that the Government will address it more carefully than they have done hitherto. However, in light of all that has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mullin: I beg to move amendment No.5, in page 2, line 1, after 'constable' insert 'in the presence of his solicitor'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 2, line 5, at end insert 'of his choice'.
No. 7, in page 2, line 8, leave out from 'offence' to `the' in line 9.
No. 8, in page 2, line 14, at end insert 'of his choice.'.
No. 15, in page 3, line 7, at end insert—
`() All questioning under this section shall take place in the presence of a solicitor if the suspect so requests.'.
No. 16, in page 3, line 7, at end insert—
`() Every suspect to be questioned under the provisions of this section shall be informed of his rights under subjection (13) above.'.
No. 23, in clause 2, page 4, line 10, after 'constable' insert
`in the presence of his solicitor'.

No. 24, in page 4, line 14, at end insert 'of his choice.'.
No. 25, in page 4, line 16, leave out from 'offence' to `the' in line 17.
No. 26, in page 4, line 22, at end insert 'of his choice.'. 
No. 31, in page 5, line 7, at end insert—
`() Every suspect to be questioned under the provisions of this section shall be informed of his rights under subsection (12) above.'.
No. 32, in page 5, line 7, at end insert—
`() Every suspect to be questioned under the provisions of this section shall be informed of his rights under subsection (12) above.'.

Mr. Mullin: This is the first of several helpful amendments that I have tabled designed to enhance the credibility of the Bill. There is no malice in my heart. I am in favour of rounding up terrorists—I just want to be sure that we do round up terrorists and not somebody else. I do not want us to get into a lot of trouble with the European Court of Human Rights, or with the courts in Ireland.
It is in that spirit that I move this simple little amendment, which will be readily comprehensible to everyone present, to require that a solicitor be present when interviews take place. The interviews are very important—they will be the corroboration that will be required when a police officer stands up in court. It is important that the interviews should be as credible as possible.
Under the Bill as it stands, the suspect is allowed to consult a solicitor, but the solicitor is kicked out when the interview takes place. That is not good enough. It would not wash anywhere else in the UK, and I do not see why it should wash in Northern Ireland. I make no criticism of Ministers, and I recognise the serious problems that they are up against. I do not think that the problems come from Ministers. It will seem incredible to many that the Government are resisting an amendment of such obvious common sense, but the problem has arisen because, unfortunately, there are mighty vested interests in Northern Ireland.
The culture in Northern Ireland is such that even the most moderate change is likely to encounter the most strenuous resistance. That is why Ministers find themselves in this difficult position. It is not my intention to make their lives difficult. I want the Bill to be improved so that it is credible to the outside world. That is the purpose of the amendment.
The presence of a solicitor during an interview with someone charged with a serious offence is standard practice elsewhere in the UK—Scotland may be an exception, but I do not want to get into another debate about Scotland—but that does not apply to terrorist cases. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which lays down all sorts of safeguards for the rights of suspects, does not apply to terrorist cases.
The police in the UK realised long ago that it was in their interests to do things by the book and to have witnesses who were able to confirm that if necessary. They voluntarily record interviews, even in cases where they do not have to, and they allow solicitors to be present.
Of course, I look forward to the day, and I think that it may not be too far off, when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act extends to all criminal offences. It is not sensible—this was done a while ago—to exempt the most


serious terrorist offences from the Act. It is the one area where people might think, in the light of history, that we need a few safeguards. This is not obligatory at the moment, but I am confident that that day is coming and I know that the Government are working on that.
All sensible policemen in Northern Ireland, and elsewhere in the UK, will regard the presence of a solicitor as a protection, not a threat. The policeman's evidence has to stand up in court, and these cases will be widely watched by the outside world when they come to court. The presence of a solicitor can only help.
1.45 am
I shall listen with great care to the Home Secretary because I am puzzled about why the amendment must be opposed, when it is obviously so reasonable to all people of common sense. I shall push it to a vote unless I hear something that suggests that considerable progress is about to be made.
This is the moment for the RUC. If we make the Bill conditional on the presence of solicitors and on audio recording, all their complex objections will melt away overnight like snow on the edge of a volcano. Everything that was impossible yesterday will become possible tomorrow when they realise that they will not get what they want from the Bill unless those elementary safeguards are included.
I look forward to a speech from the Secretary of State that matches the spirit in which I offer this simple little amendment because my purpose is to enhance the Bill and to make it more credible, so that we can hold up our heads in the outside world and go away from this place tonight feeling that we have done something useful.

Mr. Öpik: I add a word of support to what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has said. It seems a matter of common sense to us and, more to the point, it is of great importance that justice is seen to be done. There are so many ways in which the Bill can fall down if it appears unjust in the eyes of the public. I will not reiterate the points that he has made, but I stress that we support his sentiment.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 propose that a suspect should be allowed to have the solicitor "of his choice." I hope that the assumption is that the choice will be within reason; I foresee enormous difficulty if the choice is limitless.
I am not convinced about amendment No. 7, which seems to remove the requirement for the suspect to make a statement where he or she has been informed by the police that he or she may be charged. I think that, on that, the Bill makes good sense.
By and large, we support the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. It is important that we are seen to be bending over backwards to ensure that no accusation can be levelled that civil liberties are being undermined by the Bill. We think that it would be helpful for the Home Secretary to give an assurance that the Government will reconsider. Perhaps they will introduce a Government amendment in another place if they do not feel able to accept the amendment tonight.

Mr. McNamara: I do not intend to delay the Committee for long.
I take up the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). There is a contradiction in what the Government said earlier if they hope very quickly to have oral recordings of interviews. If that is the case, there can be no possible reason for not having a solicitor present. A solicitor will, in any event, hear what has been recorded. If we are to have a delay before the recording of interviews is introduced, as has been suggested, it makes sense for a solicitor to be present. There is no longer a disagreement in principle about keeping a record of the interview.
I believe that the reluctance to have a solicitor present shows a feeling that solicitors are somehow not to be trusted because if they were present during an interrogation they would pick up something, rush out and start telling other people. We encountered that nudge, nudge, wink, wink attitude when we were in opposition and were urging proper representation by solicitors at interrogations. That point is invalid if we are to have recordings. There is no reason why solicitors should not be allowed to be present.
It is possible, under the current drafting of the Bill, for a solicitor to be present on three occasions, but not to be present throughout an interrogation: he can be present before a caution is made; he can be present before the suspect is informed that he might be cautioned or charged; and he can be present before the charge is made. However, the solicitor cannot be present continuously. While the RUC is getting over the technical difficulties of not having the necessary equipment, despite provision being made six or nine months ago to have it in police stations, we should remember that most solicitors have legs or bicycles or motor cars and can attend Castlereagh, Gough barracks or the Strand police station, where special interrogations take place. They can be present and listen and we can wait for the glorious day when we have audio recordings.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: It has oft been said during our debates on the Bill that justice must be seen to be done. Unless justice is seen to be done, the population of Northern Ireland may think that the Bill does not represent their interests. It is fundamental to the rule of law and to common justice that people should have the full right to be heard and to professional representation throughout their hearing. It is not good enough to say that they can be represented by a solicitor before a caution and before a charge is made. They should have a right to be represented by a solicitor throughout the hearing.
We are in danger of passing legislation that will result in innocent people being charged with offences that they have not committed. The House of Commons should jealously guard the interests of minorities and of people who have not committed crimes. I am concerned that ordinary, inarticulate people in Northern Ireland may be convicted of crimes that they have not committed. It is common sense that suspects should have proper legal representation. If the Government resist the amendments, they will appear to have something to hide. I know that it is inconvenient for prosecuting authorities to have articulate solicitors and barristers arguing the case, but that is not the point. Justice must be seen to be done.
I ask the Home Secretary, instead of smirking and talking to his colleagues as he is, to listen seriously to the representations being made and to consider sensibly whether the amendments are of sufficient merit to be


included in the Bill. We should take into account the sensible proposals advanced by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), which would create a situation in Northern Ireland that is the norm even in respect of extremely minor offences in the rest of the United Kingdom—ordinary audio tape recording and representation by a solicitor.
All the police and criminal evidence legislation has included provisions allowing individuals to be represented by a proper solicitor. Why should some of the UK's citizens, in the face of some of the most serious offences imaginable, not to be allowed legal representation? The Home Secretary should seriously consider the amendments. If he fails to do so, the legislation may be seen to be oppressive and in breach of the European convention on human rights, and thus subject to challenge in the European Court.

Mr. White: The amendments enhance the Bill. It is hard for an individual to admit to having made a mistake, but it is almost impossible for a system to do so.
The police are under immense pressure to get a result in respect of terrorist offences. I related earlier my experiences of about 20 years ago. If a suspect is indeed a member of a proscribed organisation, is it not important that we ensure that he cannot cry, "perfidious Albion" and say that the accusation is a set-up? There must be evidence to convict such individuals. If the suspect is innocent, should there not be a solicitor present to protect individuals, who might be as naive as I was about 20 years ago?
If the problem is that the RUC will not accept that, it is contempt of what the House suggested six or nine months ago. Joe Kennedy said that, in politics, perception is everything, but, if we do not enhance the Bill, the perception will be that we have something to hide. I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Government to take on board a sensible amendment that will give the Bill greater credibility.

Mr. Martin Salter: I am sure that all hon. Members are aware that Parliament has been recalled to introduce tough—some would say draconian—measures to deal with an exceptional situation in Northern Ireland. I fully support the Bill and its underlying aim of taking out the 20, 30, 40 or 50 individuals who are pledged to undermine the Good Friday agreement, to bomb, maim and destroy innocent people and to undermine all that we have worked for. However, I could support the Bill even more strongly with the inclusion of the amendment.
Tough laws need tough safeguards. Yes, the Omagh bombing was an attack on the Belfast agreement. Yes, it was an attack on the peace process. However, as great an attack on the peace process and the Good Friday agreement would be the first miscarriage of justice that occurred as a result of the inadequacies in the Bill. I hope that we can avoid miscarriages of justice, because it is in our interests to do so. There is no coherent argument to be made against the full involvement of proper and due legal representation, so I urge all hon. Members to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for the manner in which he moved the amendment. I also thank all other hon. Members for their contributions on this important issue.
Let me start by saying to my hon. Friend that, for reasons that I have explained, I cannot accept the amendment, but I do accept and acknowledge the overall case that he made in respect of the importance of proper safeguards for the accused. Those are important, first and foremost, in the interests of justice—they are a mark of the rule of law—but they are also important in the interests of ensuring that guilty men are convicted and that our police system works efficiently.
I make no reference at all to terrorism or the north of Ireland, but I remember from my short time at the Bar more than 25 years ago that in those days only the judges' rules were available, and they were not properly enforced. Police officers used to refer to the "Ways and Means Act", which had never been before any Parliament but gave them the ways and means of obtaining confessions. Even decent police officers jealously guarded the old procedures, because they genuinely believed that those less formal methods, which were less subject to proper outside scrutiny, were in the interests of justice because they helped them to secure convictions efficiently.
We and the police have reaped the whirlwind of those methods. There have been serious revelations of corruption and an increasing scepticism on the Bench about the way in which confessions have sometimes been extracted, as well as some celebrated miscarriages of justice whereby innocent people spent many years in prison. Courts and juries have become increasingly sceptical about police evidence. It would have been far better if safeguards had been put in place much earlier, giving rise to much less questioning of the veracity of police evidence. The rare but important cases that besmirched British justice, when shortcuts were taken or corruption or violence was used, might not then have arisen.
2 am
I entirely agree that we need the greatest possible safeguards for the accused, but the Bill includes some important safeguards and others are already in place. We have already had a lengthy debate about the evidential safeguards and the fact that people cannot be convicted solely on the opinion evidence of a senior police officer or because of a refusal to answer material questions. The Bill also contains the very important safeguard that no inferences can be drawn before the defendant has been permitted to consult a solicitor.
The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to the European convention on human rights.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: If, according to the criteria in police and criminal evidence legislation, people in the rest of the United Kingdom are entitled to proper legal representation on comparatively minor charges, surely those accused of the most serious crimes—terrorist offence—who might be innocent and might be inarticulate should be allowed proper representation both pre-caution and post-caution and at the evidence-taking stage. I cannot understand how the Home Secretary can possibly resist the amendment.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman's assumption about standard practice elsewhere in the United Kingdom is incorrect.
We are satisfied that the Bill meets the requirements of the European convention. I am delighted that, as a result of the Human Rights Bill, many Conservative Members, who were sceptical even about our signing the declaration, are becoming more and more convinced of the need for incorporation and of the benefits that it will bring. One of the benefits that it has already brought is that there is a much greater daily focus on the crucial issue of human rights and the rubric of human rights. The burden of the judgment in the Murray case was that before inferences from silence could be drawn, the person should have a right to consult a solicitor. The European Court of Human Rights did not say that a solicitor should be present throughout the rest of questioning. We have reflected Murray exactly in the measure.
There are other safeguards. Since January, there has been a mandatory regime for silent video-recording of all interrogations in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Why silent?

Mr. Straw: When the hon. Gentleman represented Cirencester and Tewkesbury he usually supported the previous Government, who for a long time resisted the introduction of any safeguards for the questioning of suspects in Northern Ireland. I shall not detain the Committee with an explanation of why it is silent. It is a significant advance and an important safeguard for suspects and for police officers against allegations of assault on suspects—the overwhelming majority of police officers do not go in for such practices—and it also records the general conduct of interviews.
When we deal with the next set of amendments, I shall speak about the statutory provision to ensure that interviews can be audio-recorded in circumstances such as those that are anticipated in the Bill. The only issue there, which is an important one and with which I shall deal on the next group of amendments, is the time that it is taking to introduce those arrangements.

Mr. Öpik: Is the Home Secretary completely satisfied that the Bill will not fall foul of the ruling in the Murray case?

Mr. Straw: Yes, I am. As I introduced the Human Rights Bill, it would be odd for me to introduce measures that were knowingly outwith the convention and then deny that that was the case. I hope that my hon. Friends would agree that that would be completely out of character. All Ministers make an effort to ensure that Bills are consistent with conventions.
Perhaps the most important point is whether, as a general rule, solicitors ought to be present at interrogations. They are present in England and Wales, and that is desirable. I suggest that one of the reasons for the European Court not saying that solicitors should be present in all interrogations of suspects in serious crimes

is that that is not necessarily the general rule in the jurisdictions of the countries that are signatories to the Council of Europe convention.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: It is in England and Wales.

Mr. Straw: Yes, but it is not the general rule in Scotland.

Dr. Godman: That is right.

Mr. Straw: Yes, it is. In Scotland, a person who may be charged has the right to see a solicitor privately, but there is no requirement whatever for the solicitor to be present at interviews under the general criminal law as well as under prevention of terrorism legislation. That is a feature of the Scottish system and I do not presume to say whether it is better or worse than the system that obtains in England and Wales. However, I am not aware of serious complaints being raised in the House about the quality of interrogations and their reliability being undermined by the absence of a solicitor. In England and Wales, solicitors are present during interrogations, both under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and in practice under the prevention of terrorism legislation.

Dr. Godman: Many of us in Scotland disapprove strongly of the present system, but the absence of solicitors in such circumstances was supported for many years by Conservative Members when they were in government.

Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
One of the advantages of devolution to Scotland is that such a matter can be considered at greater length, and if the people of Scotland wish to change it, that will be a matter for them.

Mr. Roger Berry: I take on board all the points that my right hon. Friend has made so far, but does he agree that he has yet to advance a single argument against this specific amendment?

Mr. Straw: No, I do not agree. I have advanced a number of arguments about why we cannot accept the amendment at this time.
I acknowledge that it is desirable for solicitors to be present, but systems and practices vary from one jurisdiction to another and changing those can, and often inevitably does, take considerable time. That is in the nature of this kind of exercise.
We propose to consider the matter carefully in the context of the wider consultation exercise on counter-terrorism legislation and I shall publish a consultation document later this autumn.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
I understand the anxieties that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South expressed. I do not dispute the principle that he raises about the importance of safeguards for the accused, but I regret that, for the reasons that I have outlined, I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Mullin: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I know that he is in a difficult position and I do not want to make his job any more difficult.
In the Northern Ireland jurisdiction abuse has been widespread over a long period and has attracted international, never mind national, recognition. A recent United Nations special rapporteur report on the independence of judges and lawyers was highly critical of current and past RUC practices. That is what led to the present Independent Commission on Policing. Therefore, there is serious concern in Northern Ireland about this. Last week, 30 solicitors put their names to a statement expressing extreme concern.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be offended, but, if I can, I shall divide the House.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Mullin: I beg to move amendment No. 9 in page 2, line 14, at end insert—
'(5A) But subsection (6) shall not apply unless evidence given under subsection (4) or (5) above is supported by a sound recording of the questioning or other exchanges to which the evidence relates.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 27, in clause 2, page 4, line 22 at end insert—
'(5A) But subsection (6) shall not apply unless evidence given under subsection (4) or (5) above is supported by a sound recording of the questioning or other exchanges to which the evidence relates.'.

Mr. Mullin: This is the second of the helpful amendments that I am moving this evening. It concerns audio-recording. [Interruption.]

Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman pursues his intervention, the Committee must come to order and settle down.

Dr. Godman: As I said earlier, when a suspect is questioned in a Scottish police station, the interview must be audio-recorded. In an earlier debate, I argued for such recordings in Northern Ireland police stations. Is the equipment in place there? Does it simply need to be activated?

Mr. Mullin: Yes, the equipment is in place. There are no practical obstacles to audio-recording. This was an issue on which I hoped that we could make progress tonight, as I know that Ministers are sympathetic. The

purpose of the amendment is to make the Bill conditional on audio-recording. There has been a great deal of foot-dragging on the matter.
I listened carefully to the Minister's winding-up speech on Second Reading and I acknowledged that we were making progress, but I was disappointed when I heard those fateful words "as soon as possible". We have heard them numerous times over recent months. There are no practical obstacles to audio-recording. What is lacking is the political will. Indeed, I am not even certain that that is lacking. I think that Ministers are doing their best.
The previous Government tried to persuade the RUC, without success, to accept audio recordings. On 30 October last year, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the Labour party conference that there would be audio recordings. They were provided for in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998, which received Royal Assent on 8 April. It is already provided for in legislation. That is what makes the amendment even more reasonable than the previous one.
Lord Dubs was asked on 10 June how we were getting on with the procedure for sorting out audio recordings. He replied:
Preparation of a draft code of practice governing audio-recording of police interviews with terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland is currently under way; the draft code will be presented for the approval of both Houses of Parliament as soon as possible."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 90–91.]
That phrase again—"as soon as possible".
I am concerned that progress is a little slow. We have here an opportunity to move a bit faster. If the House of Commons decides to make audio-recording—this is pretty basic stuff—a condition of the Bill, all the objections to it will disappear overnight. The Government will not hear any more about them. At 9.30 tomorrow morning, recording could be organised.
When I intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary this afternoon, he said that there were practical problems. The practical problems cannot be all that great, because some of the holding centres in Northern Ireland have the facilities installed. In his report, the Commissioner for the Holding Centres said:
We understand that the installations at the Centres have the means of being readily adaptable to accommodate audio-recording, as and when that is authorised".
Well, let us get on with it. I do not understand the reason for the delay—or rather, I think that I do understand the reason. It has nothing to do with Ministers. The reason is the foot-dragging by the usual people. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned silent video-recording. My goodness, that was a struggle to bring in. It took a long time. With the first lot of equipment that the police put in, the images on the video were so obscure that the whole lot had to be chucked out and they had to start again. One could not see what was happening, and the whole purpose of a video is to see what is happening.

Mr. McNamara: When there was a video but not an audio record, it was not unknown for interrogators to put their coat over the camera.

Mr. Mullin: Yes, and it has not been unknown for the equipment to break down at key points, or for the attention of the officer supposed to be monitoring it to wander at key points. There are all those problems.
I return to my point about the presence of solicitors. We want the legislation to be credible. The purpose of the amendment and the previous amendment is not to undermine the legislation; it is to make it credible. At the moment, it is not credible. It will get us into a lot of trouble if we are not careful. It will make quite a big difference if, when the police say in court that the suspect refused to co-operate, the suspect did this or the suspect did that, a tape recording can be produced.
The police in the rest of the United Kingdom got used to all this some time ago. They opposed it initially and then they found that it was in their interests. Of course it is in their interests, because they no longer have to spend hours in court and do not have to spend enormous amounts of money on lawyers arguing who said what to whom, when. It is greatly in the interests of the police and everyone involved that a credible record should exist of what is said in interviews. As a recording is the corroborative evidence—in addition to the opinion of the police officer—it will be pretty important to have credible corroboration. At the moment, we do not have credible corroboration.
This is my contribution to the Bill. I want us to have credible evidence that can be presented in court. That can be done only with audio recordings. It is not very controversial or difficult. The facilities already exist. All that is lacking is the will, and not, I think, the will of Ministers. Frankly, we are just talking about the time scale.
The Bill is an ideal opportunity to improve the time scale a little. I do not want to hear that audio-recording is being introduced as soon as possible. There was some clarification, and it was stated that the proposals would come into force on 1 January, but I think that everything that is supposed to happen under the Bill will be over by then. I want to hear that people arrested under the Bill will be interviewed in circumstances that are not controversial and in which there can be no dispute about who is saying what. That is the assurance that I seek from Ministers. In the absence of that assurance, I am sorry that I shall have to press the amendment to a vote—and this time there will be Tellers in the appropriate place.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Until this evening, I had not agreed with him on virtually anything, but the amendment carries enormous credibility.
When a case of a miscarriage of justice arises, we shall examine this legislation. Following the judgment in Pepper v. Hart, we shall read what was said by Members of Parliament as recorded in Hansard. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South did not manage to put Tellers in place for the Division on the previous amendment relating to the presence of a solicitor. I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will be prepared to push an amendment to that effect on Third Reading.
It seems that the elementary rules of the Police and Criminal Act 1984 demand that we have an audio record, so amendments Nos. 9 and 27 are eminently sensible. I should prefer a video record, but, if we cannot have that, let us have an audio record. We have discovered this evening that the equipment is already in the courts and the cells, so why can the Home Secretary not accept the amendments? He sits there looking sullen. He accepted

the moral arguments that I made when we debated previous amendments about solicitors, so why on earth can he not accept amendments dealing with the audio-recording of evidence given by terrorist suspects? We are talking about the most serious offences of which anyone is likely to be convicted, so why can the proper safeguards not be put in place?
If the Home Secretary wishes to carry the good will of the people of Northern Ireland and to ensure that justice is seen to be done, he should accept the amendments. If he does not, the people of Northern Ireland will ask why.

Mr. Richard Allan: I offer strong support from the Liberal Democrats for the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). We share the concern that has been expressed across the Chamber about the cost of miscarriages of justice—the cost to the criminal justice system itself in having to put them right, but also the cost to the credibility of the entire legal system in the communities that are supposed to be served by that system.
Technology is a two-way street. It is now used effectively to catch criminals. Indeed, we spend most of our days walking past closed circuit television cameras which accurately record everything that we do. In the same way, technology should be used to protect the rights of defendants until such time as they have been convicted of a crime.
We strongly support the use of audio technology. As we have heard, the facilities already exist. There are no excuses for not proceeding with audio-recording. When in opposition, the Labour party called for audio interviews and recordings to be extended. There are specific requirements in the Bill which mean that audio-recording should be included. It is not sufficient to say that audio-recording in general is being introduced.
The Bill would introduce the key element of using inferences drawn from an interview and the responses of the accused in the interview as corroborative evidence in court. In those circumstances, it is entirely appropriate to link the gathering of the evidence with the audio recording. That should be done in the Bill through such an amendment, rather than being left simply to a general audio-recording provision, which may or may not be introduced later.
There may be security requirements whereby the Government would want certain parts of an interview, for example those in which the names of informants were revealed, to be kept secret. However, it is not beyond the wit of the courts to excise certain parts of an interview if that has to be done for security reasons. Certainly, there should be ways around that, but it is appropriate that the general tone and gist of the interview from which one is drawing inferences should be made available through the audio-recording system.
Certainly, we are aware that many of the key elements in the famous miscarriage of justice cases about which we all know relate back to the interview, as the research of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South has shown. The interview is critical—the tone and manner of the police officers and the responses of the defendant are critical to those cases. The simple, straightforward way to get rid of such problems is to make the recordings available. That is in the interests of the police force as well as of the defendant, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South said.
We hope that the Government will accept that the amendment should be in the Bill and should not merely be put off until such a date as they choose to implement it. We shall certainly support the hon. Member for Sunderland, South if he can give us the tools whereby we can register our vote in the Division Lobby.

Ms Abbott: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in favour of this modest amendment. We are discussing the rule of law in the British isles, which requires three things: first, that the public support the forces of law and order; secondly, that those forces carry out their job properly; and, thirdly, that we as legislators set in place the correct legislative framework for the first two to happen. I am not persuaded that the Bill sets out that framework.
Some of my colleagues believe that, in the aftermath of Omagh and because of the public concern, we must push through this legislation and that it is not the details but the spirit behind it that matters. However, the detail of this legislation is crucial. If it is wrong and if implementation goes wrong, we run the risk of creating a new generation of republican martyrs.
I listened carefully to the Home Secretary' s arguments against an earlier amendment concerning the presence of solicitors, but I did not hear him put forward a single argument against their presence. All he had to say was that practice varies in different European Union countries. He did not show why practice should vary in Northern Ireland. I should be grateful if he would give some concrete arguments against tape recording in respect of the amendment.
The way in which the legislation is being pushed through is wrong. Tagging on clauses 5, 6 and 7 is also wrong, and I shall come to that at the appropriate time. I hope that this simple amendment, which would greatly improve this unfortunate legislation, will at least persuade the Home Secretary to offer some concrete arguments in favour of his position.

Audrey Wise: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said earlier that he would plead with the Home Secretary to accept the amendments. I echo his wording. I rarely comment on Northern Ireland issues and I do so now with great humility because those issues are complicated. I am not one who thinks that there are easy answers to such issues; nor do I think that it is enough to say, "Civil liberties, civil liberties," and that those are an argument against the sort of legislation that is before us.
I am aware that all liberties are restrained and have limits. There are balances and compromises to be made. I am aware of that and accept it. I also accept that the Government are in a difficult position after Omagh. The Government's handling of Northern Ireland has been brilliant, to echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). That is why some of us are so agitated—we do not want that spoilt now.
I am also nervous about commenting on technical issues, but I remember my mother telling me that sound came to the movies in 1930. Yet now I am told that we are in the era of silent videos. The technology is not even expensive. Even I feel competent to make a comment on it. I was thinking of saying that, if we cannot afford it, we should have a whip-round. Anyway, my hon. Friend the

Member for Sunderland, South says that it is already there. Capital equipment is lying idle. That does not make economic sense.
There is nothing that my right hon. Friend can say against the amendment. Please, please just accept it. We want to be in the same Lobby, so just accept the amendment.

Mr. Straw: I wish that I could, but, for reasons that I shall explain, I cannot. There is no disagreement in principle, certainly among Labour Members, about the desirability of audio interviews during the interrogation of suspects under prevention of terrorism legislation in Northern Ireland. After a lengthy campaign, in which I was not involved—it has to be said that my hon. Friends were not assisted by many Opposition Members in that campaign, either—this House and the other place finally agreed earlier this year, by means of the passage of section 5 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, that there should be audio recordings of police interviews.
That will happen. The only issue—I accept that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) says, it is an important one—is when it should take place. My hon. Friend wants to ensure that the core part of the operation of the first part of the Bill cannot come into force until facilities for the audio-recording of the interrogation of suspects are properly in place. That would be the direct effect of his amendment.

Dr. Godman: May I ask my right hon. Friend a couple of practical questions about the use of audio-recorded interviews? Has the RUC published a training manual for its officers concerned with such interviews? Has a code of practice concerning such interviews been published? What kind of training programmes have been implemented for officers who will be engaged in them?

Mr. Straw: I am sorry; I missed my hon. Friend's third question.

Dr. Godman: It was about training.

Mr. Straw: The answer to my hon. Friend's questions shows why we could not accept the amendment unless we were also ready to accept that the implementation of the Bill could be delayed for some weeks—and we do not believe that it could. By the way, I do not subscribe to the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South that the whole purpose of the Bill will have been and gone before audio-recording is in place. The Bill's purpose will be there so long as there remains a threat—[Interruptionj—a serious threat, from splinter terrorist groups of the kind designated by the Bill. I hope that that time is as short as possible, but none of us with experience of terrorism in Northern Ireland can say how long that will be.

Ms Abbott: rose—

Mr. Straw: Of course I shall give way, but I should like to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) first.
Under legislation passed only five months ago by this House and the other place, it was agreed in principle that audio recordings should be in place for the interrogation


of suspects under prevention of terrorism legislation—but it was also agreed that a number of steps needed to be taken before that could happen.
One of those steps was that a code of practice should not only be published but come before the House and receive affirmative approval, as well as the approval of the other place. That is often a standard practice when the House wants to ensure that the provisions of a code of practice are comprehensive. Inevitably, that is bound to lead to some delay. It is not possible to achieve that until the House next sits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde asked about the training manual. Obviously, that will follow the code of practice. There was a third point, which I missed, but I am happy to give way again.

Dr. Godman: I asked about a manual, about a code of practice and about training. However, now that the Secretary of State has courteously given way again, may I ask a fourth question? Presumably, there are codes of practice for Scottish police forces, where audio-recorded interviews are commonplace. There must be a code of practice for police forces south of the border, here in England. Presumably, training can be given by those Scottish and English police officers who are expert in this field.

Mr. Straw: The RUC is not starting from scratch on that. If that is the point that my hon. Friend is making, he is absolutely right: the RUC has considerable experience.
The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) says that, unless we pass amendment No. 27, we shall offend the good will of the people of Northern Ireland. However, one reason why this legislation was not previously approved by the House was the considerable opposition by a substantial section of the community in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Hansard on the emergency provisions debates from November 1997 and earlier this year, he will see that opposition reflected there. People—including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—who have played an important role in the peace process had genuine and serious anxieties about the potential abuse of audio recordings if they were introduced into Northern Ireland. That opposition existed for a very long time.
As the Minister of State, Northern Ireland office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), told Standing Committee A, new Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan actually supports the change. It is not an issue of dispute among Parliament, Government and the RUC. My hon. Friend said:
The Chief Constable recently said that he no longer considered that audio recording would deter his officers in the pursuit of terrorist crime, and that is his judgment. He did not say that because he wanted to be politically correct, but because he, too, has taken on board the assessments that have been made and the benefits which will flow from the introduction of audio recording."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 November 1997; c. 110–11.]
The only issue, therefore, is timing. My hon. Friend has made it clear that—

Mr. Allan: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is also an issue of principle? An inference will be drawn

from the responses given in the interview, and it will be crucial to know whether a suspect grunted, or gave an inarticulate response, or was completely silent. An audio recording is fundamental. A typewritten script of an interview will not reveal its entirety.

Mr. Straw: I know that it is not an alternative, but there is already the silent video-recording, which provides important evidence about the conduct of the interview. What the hon. Gentleman says explains why the whole of the House of Commons has accepted that audio recordings are better, but the question before the Committee now—

Mr. White: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to my hon. Friend and then I shall return to the question.

Mr. White: If the amendment is not accepted, some people may be arrested and charged under the Act, and they may lose their defence. Either they will be terrorists who are using arguments to challenge the prosecution's case, or they will be innocent people who have been misunderstood. The amendment would resolve that conflict. It seems to me that we are unnecessarily creating problems for ourselves. That will undermine the principle of this important Bill.

Mr. Straw: As I have said, it is not in dispute that it is better if audio recordings are available, and that is the Chief Constable's view—reported by my hon. Friend the Minister.
However, the issue before the Committee is whether we can delay the Bill's implementation until audio recordings are available. The Prime Minister sought, with the Speaker's consent, to have Parliament recalled because we believed that there was an urgent situation, which required urgent changes in the law. We do believe—we would not have sought the recall of Parliament otherwise—that this legislation needs to come into force in the next two or three days, to give the police and the courts the powers that we judge to be necessary.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I want to finish this point, if I may.
There is no question in our mind, as I believe was reflected in the overwhelming vote in favour of Second Reading. Given that, it is not possible for us to pass the Bill with the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way, on this point?

Mr. Straw: No, I wish to proceed.
I do not believe that injustice will arise without my hon. Friend's amendment, for reasons that I have already explained in responding to his earlier amendments—although, of course, it is preferable for audio-recording to be there. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has explained, the original intention—before the need for the


Bill arose—was for audio-recording to come into force from 1 January this year. My hon. Friend has explained,and I will repeat the point—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Is it in order for the Home Secretary to misrepresent the current situation? He has already told the Committee that audio facilities exist in places where evidence is likely to be taken—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Straw: I am not misrepresenting any situation; I am merely trying to explain why, with great sadness, I cannot accept my hon. Friend's amendment, and also to explain that we are taking steps to ensure that audio-recording is introduced as soon as possible and before the date previously marked down for it—1 January.
We are working hard to introduce the draft code of practice, on which there will have to be consultation. The draft code will then have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament as soon as possible within the time frame that has been laid down. We are also seeking to ascertain—my hon. Friend will understand that this has arisen only in the last two or three days—whether the administrative procedures that we can put in place will mimic the code before it becomes law, but once the draft code is available. I shall give hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, further information on that—not today, but as soon as such information becomes available.
I hope that the Committee will accept my explanation of why we cannot accept the amendment, and that we feel sadness and regret; but I hope that the Committee will also accept the determination of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and me to ensure that these arrangements are introduced as soon as humanly possible.

Mr. Mullin: I do not question the seriousness with which Ministers are pursuing this matter. I know that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have made a little progress even today—and we would not have made that progress if the amendment had not been tabled. I am confident that we can make a little further progress, because I think that the problem lies with the RUC. I accept that the present Chief Constable—the new Chief Constable—is signed up, but I do not think that many of his colleagues necessarily are. There has been great foot-dragging on that matter. The facilities already exist. Audio interviews already take place in Northern Ireland—they just do not happen to take place in terrorist cases. All we are talking about is using the same facilities, and perhaps the same people who do the interviews, in terrorist cases.
Even if those involved are not compelled to do that, there is nothing to prevent them from doing it voluntarily. The police on the mainland have done voluntarily many things that they were not obliged to do by police and criminal evidence legislation. I acknowledge the progress that has been made today, which I welcome. I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for that progress. However, to move things on and to concentrate minds, I wish to put the amendment to the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 43, Noes 199.

Division No. 359]
[2.49 am


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Alan, Richard
Hopkins, Kelvin


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Iddon, Dr Brian


Berry, Roger
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Best, Harold
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Blunt, Crispin
McAllion, John


Borrow, David
McDonnell, John


Breed, Colin
McNamara, Kevin


Burnett, John
McWalter, Tony


Butler, Mrs Christine
Mullin, Chris


Canavan, Dennis
Öpik, Lembit



Pollard, Kerry


Caton, Martin
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Rendel, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cotter, Brian
Skinner, Dennis


Cousins, Jim
Stunell, Andrew


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Dalyell, Tam
Webb, Steve


Davidson, Ian
Wise, Audrey


Etherington, Bill



Fyfe, Maria
Tellers for the Ayes:


Gibson, Dr Ian
Ann Clwyd and


Harris, Dr Evan
Mr. Donald Gorrie.




NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Denham, John


Alexander, Douglas
Dobbin, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Donohoe, Brian H


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Bayley, Hugh
Dowd, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Edwards, Huw


Begg, Miss Anne
Ennis, Jeff


Beggs, Roy
Fisher, Mark


Betts, Clive
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Blizzard, Bob
Flint, Caroline


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foulkes, George


Bradshaw, Ben
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gardiner, Barry


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Browne, Desmond
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Buck, Ms Karen
Goggins, Paul


Burden, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caborn, Richard
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caplin, Ivor
Grocott, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grogan, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coaker, Vernon
Healey, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cohen, Harry
Heppell, John


Coleman, Iain
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Colman, Tony
Home Robertson, John


Cooper, Yvette
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cranston, Ross
Hope, Phil


Crausby, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cummings, John
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Darvill, Keith
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Illsley, Eric


Dean, Mrs Janet
Ingram, Adam






Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jamieson, David
Raynsford, Nick


Jenkins, Brian
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rooney, Terry


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roy, Frank


Kidney, David
Ruane, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruddock, Ms Joan


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Savidge, Malcolm


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sawford, Phil


Laxton, Bob
Sheerman, Barry


Leslie, Christopher
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Levitt, Tom
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Linton, Martin
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lock, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Love, Andrew
Soley, Clive


McAvoy, Thomas
Spellar, John


McCabe, Steve
Stevenson, George


McDonagh, Siobhain
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McNulty, Tony
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


McWilliam, John
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mandelson, Peter
Stringer, Graham


Martlew, Eric
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Merron, Gillian



Michael, Alun
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Miller, Andrew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moffatt, Laura
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Touhig, Don


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Trickett, Jon


Mudie, George
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Norris, Dan
Wareing, Robert N


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Watts, David


O'Hara, Eddie
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Olner, Bill
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Organ, Mrs Diana



Palmer, Dr Nick
Wills, Michael


Pearson, Ian
Wilson, Brian


Pendry, Tom
Winnick, David


Pickthall, Colin
Woolas, Phil


Pike, Peter L
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Pond, Chris
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Pope, Greg
Wyatt, Derek


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prosser, Gwyn
Tellers for the Noes:


Purchase, Ken
Mr. Mike Hall and


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. Graham Allen.

Question accordingly negatived.

3 am

Mr. Ö pik: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 24, at end insert—
'(6A) If both subsections (3) and (6) apply, the accused shall not be committed for trial in England and Wales, or found to have a case to answer or be convicted, solely on the basis of inferences drawn and statements admitted as evidence under those subsections.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 17, in page 3, line 7 at end insert—

() No person shall be convicted of an offence under section (2)(1)(a) above on the basis solely of the cumulative effect of the opinion of a police officer under section 2A(2) acting together with any inference or inferences drawn under section 2A(6)(a).'.
No. 33, in clause 2, page 5, line 7, at end insert—
() No person shall be convicted of an offence under section 30(1)(a) above on the basis solely of the cumulative effect of the opinion of a police officer under section 30A(2) acting together with any inference or inferences drawn under section 30A(6)(a).'.

Mr. Öpik: The purpose of the amendment is to probe a potential anomaly in the Bill. We want to understand whether a combination of subsections will produce a different outcome.
The new section 2A(3) to be inserted by the Bill says:
If this subsection applies—
(a) the statement shall be admissible as evidence of the matter stated, but
(b) the accused shall not be committed for trial in England and Wales, or be found to have a case to answer or be convicted, solely on the basis of the statement.
Subsection (6) makes a similar provision, that the accused shall not be found guilty solely on the basis of inferences drawn from a failure to make a statement on the issue.
However, the Bill does not say what should happen if the criteria in both subsections (3) and (6) apply. Is it the Government's intention that an accused should not be found guilty on that double criterion alone? Our assumption is that an individual should not be found guilty solely on the basis of subsections (3) and (6) both applying.
In an interesting and pertinent point, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said earlier that the Bill was not a breakthrough, but an additional opportunity for us to legislate to make it more difficult for terrorists to operate, and a little easier for us to bring them to book. However, if the collective effect of fulfilling the criteria in subsections (3) and (6) entitled the court to find the accused guilty, that would be more than just a reduction in the level of evidence required; it would almost be a change in principle of the barrier between guilt and innocence. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the Government intend such a dramatic change to apply.
We do not intend to push the amendment to a vote, but we should be grateful for clarification from the Minister of what the Government intend should be the collective effect of subsections (3) and (6). If the Minister feels that the amendment would be useful, we should be pleased to hear him express an intention to accept it as it stands, or to take it away and substitute a Government amendment in another place.

Mr. McNamara: The amendment standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is somewhat similar to that moved by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), so I do not intend to delay the Committee too long. I merely wish to make the point that it appears, that, on the basis of the information we have and what appears on the face of the Bill, although the fact that a person has exercised the right to silence will not of itself convict, and although the single opinion of a police officer will not of itself convict, both put together will convict. That seems wrong.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government to reconsider their position. I shall not rehearse the Second Reading debate, but the points made then by hon. Members on both sides—some of whom supported my amendment, some of whom did not—expressed grave concern that that combination of factors, without any additional corroboration or evidence, would not only be sufficient to send a person to prison for a considerable time, but might result in him and his family losing their house, their possessions and other assets. It cannot be right that, on the flimsy basis of a policeman's opinion and a person's decision not to make a statement, not only should that person suffer a heavy prison sentence, but so much else should be put at risk.

Mr. Ingram: The amendments would prevent an accused person being committed for trial or convicted solely on the basis of the admissible evidence of a police superintendent or more senior officer and an inference drawn, when considering whether the accused is a member of specified organisation, from failure to mention a material fact. Therefore, the amendments would undermine the fundamental thrust of the legislation, which is designed to make it easier to secure conviction for membership of a specified organisation.
The Government have already taken full account of the civil liberty concerns, by ensuring that neither of those two new evidential changes is sufficient on its own. Having done so, they see no reason to make further changes that would reduce the impact of what is proposed.
Hon. Members need to be reminded that nothing in the Bill alters the criminal burden and standard of proof required to obtain convictions. It remains the case that a court would need to be satisfied on the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was guilty of the membership offence. We have introduced specific and targeted measures to try to bring to justice those who belong to specified organisations. The amendments would weaken that, and prevent that objective from being achieved. That goes against the fundamental principles of the legislation, so I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. Öpik: I am horrified that the Minister is under the impression that we are trying to weaken the legislation. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and I are simply trying to clarify the position. I apologise to the Minister if I have frightened him with my comments.
Is it the Minister's understanding of clause 1 that, if both subsection (3) and subsection (6) were fulfilled, that would mean that the individual was necessarily to be found guilty of the offence; or would the court be entitled to take both those pieces of information and add them to the general deliberations to decide whether or not an individual was to be found guilty and convicted?

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman did not frighten me. I was trying to explain the effect of the amendments, and I saw him nodding as I did so. The two evidential changes could result in a conviction only if the courts so decided. It is not for me or for the Committee to decide. The evidence would be subject to scrutiny either by a Diplock court or by jury courts in the rest of the United Kingdom.
If the RUC pressed a case, and the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales or Northern Ireland accepted its arguments, there would have to be a reasonable certainty that a conviction could be obtained, as those involved would realise that otherwise the very principle of what we are trying to achieve could be undermined. The RUC would be sure of its ground before pressing a case.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) rightly referred to the robustness of the legal system in Northern Ireland, and we have full protection in the jurisdictions in Scotland and in England and Wales. It is for the courts, not for me, to decide whether there should be a conviction, but I can say that a conviction could—not necessarily would—happen on the basis of the two elements.

Mr. Beith: I want to draw the Committee's attention to the difficulties that could arise if someone who has in the past been involved with, say, the Provisional IRA, has resisted answering questions because he does not want to incriminate himself for his former activities. The evidence of the police officer may not be soundly based, and that person may have failed to answer the questions, not because he is guilty of belonging to a proscribed organisation that has not called a ceasefire. There is a risk that, if the two elements alone are relied on, wrongful convictions will be secured. We hope that the courts will watch carefully for that.

Mr. Öpik: We are a little uncomfortable about the provisions. The Minister will have noticed that I nodded with a great deal more sincerity on the second occasion than on the first. I can delight him with the news that I think that his position is entirely clear. We may want to return to the matter, but I thank him for his clarification.

Mr. McNamara: What the Minister said is important for the record. He said that the changes could lead to a conviction, but that it is not for him but for the courts to say that they would. We all accept that. We are being told that two flimsy pieces of evidence that are insufficient individually could result in a conviction. I am unhappy that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is happy to accept that.

Mr. Öpik: To clarify the position, we are concerned about the matter, and it may be useful to consider it further, perhaps in another place. At least we have had clarification from the Minister about where he stands on the matter. I have also ascertained from his response that he recognises that someone who meets the two criteria will not necessarily be convicted. That does not go as far as we or the hon. Member for Hull, North would like, not least because the evidence could be flimsy. However, I accept that the issue may need to be further considered, and we do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 61, in page 2, line 46, after `court', insert having belonged'.

No.62, in page 2, line 48, after belongs' insert or, as the case may be, belonged'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 3, leave out lines 10 to 12 and insert—
'(a) it is listed as a proscribed organisation under the provisions of section 30(2) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 34, in clause 2, page 5, leave out lines 10 to 12 and insert—
'(a) it is listed as a proscribed organisation under the provisions of section 30(2) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.'.

Mr. Ross: The amendment's intention is clear. It seeks to replace the provisions in the Bill relating to the legislation that was passed earlier this year with the provisions in the 1996 legislation. It addresses one of the Bill's key defects.
The Bill's scope is limited. It applies to only a small number of terrorist organisations that are presently admitting that they engage in terrorism that is directed at Northern Ireland's constitutional position. The Provisional IRA alleges that it is not so engaged. It is presently milking the agreement for all the political clout that that gives it, but we must not shut our eyes to the fact that PIRA may change its view and its attitude when the milk stops flowing.
To keep PIRA peaceful, or apparently peaceful, the Government have decided to concentrate on the small terrorist organisations that are engaged in a murder campaign. Some earlier comments implied that it was possible to deal with those small groups by security measures, but that such methods should not be used on the larger ones because they have political, intellectual support. If the Government say that it is possible to deal with one organisation by security measures, I cannot understand why Governments did not similarly deal with the major ones over the past 30 years.
The Government ignore the fact that the changes to Northern Ireland's constitutional position that were brought about by the violence of the larger terrorist organisations gained for those organisations the electoral support that they currently enjoy. I—and, I think, most people in Northern Ireland—see no difference whatever in the carefully planned murders of members of the security forces over the years, the murders of Senator Barnhill in Londonderry, of Airey Neave in the precincts of the House or of Ian Gow, who, like Neave, was murdered for the simple reason that he had thought out for Northern Ireland a system of government that would work, or any of the other PIRA murders.
The intention of those murders, and the evil spirit that drove their perpetrators, was exactly the same as the intention behind the Omagh bomb. The intent of the terrorists was to murder people who stood in their way or to terrorise people into doing that which they would not otherwise do. That is the purpose of political terrorism.
The Bill ignores the major terrorist organisation, and, most significantly, it ignores the activities of Sinn Fein-PIRA. It seems to ignore all the murder activities of PIRA that are not sanctioned by the present leadership. The Government seem to be willing to come down with a heavy hand only on the small organizations.

Dr. Palmer: We are aware that the hon. Gentleman is not one of those who support the Good Friday agreement,

because he feels that agreement with Sinn Fein is undesirable. Does he agree that the amendment is an attempt to pursue his opposition to that agreement by other means?

Mr. Ross: Certainly not. It is an attempt to treat all terrorist organisations in exactly the same way. If the hon. Gentleman waits for me to finish my remarks, he will see exactly what I am trying to do.
The Bill applies the criterion of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 rather than that set out in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996. In so doing, it diminishes the number of terrorist organisations that fall within the ambit of the Bill. No truer words have been uttered than those that fell from the lips of Gerry Adams when he said PIRA had not gone away. It has not gone away. It is still there. It still has its organisation, its weaponry, its Semtex and the capacity to engage in massive violence should it so desire. It has no intention of going away until it accomplishes its goal of a united republic of Ireland.
At present, as I said, PIRA is engaged in milking agreements for every drop of influence and power that it can achieve, but some day it may well decide that this agreement has taken it as far as it is possible to go, and at that point there is a danger that it will once again consider violence—either it or a successor organisation. With its structure and weaponry intact, it could rotate from peace to war very quickly indeed. It may not happen, but, given the history of republican violence, prudence should be the order of the day when we are creating this legislation.
I and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) tabled a number of amendments to provide a safety net of measures to meet the possibility of sudden and massive violence from such a quarter. Sadly, only two have been selected, which disappoints me somewhat. The others would have placed on the police rather than the Secretary of State the responsibility of declaring, in court if need be, that an organisation and its individual members were again involved in terrorist violence.
I hope that the fact that the amendment was not selected simply means that the responsible Minister will accept the advice of the police and other security forces, and make that advice a determining factor in deciding whether an organisation is specified as engaged in terrorism should the need arise. I hope that he will be guided solely by that advice, and not by short-term political expediency. It would be atrocious if such advice given by the security forces were to be ignored for such short-term hopes of political gain.
The other amendment not selected, although I thought that it fell well inside the scope of the Bill's long title, would have restored to the statute book the power to intern, a power foolishly removed by the present Administration. That power is much needed, given the demonstration of the IRA's capacity to enforce its decree that the Real IRA should cease its violence. PIRA issued that decree because it considered that the violence was damaging to the Irish republican cause. It said so, simply and clearly, and we should not ignore what it said.
Nor should we ignore the words of Mitchel McLaughlin when interviewed shortly after the Omagh bomb. He was asked why he condemned it, and he said that he could not do anything else in the circumstances, or words to that effect. That was a telling interview. If the Minister has not seen it, I advise him to look it up, because it would be instructive, even for him.
The amendments under discussion bring all the terrorist organisations within the ambit of the Bill. In so doing, they perform a valuable service by removing the distinction that has been created in recent months between good terrorists—those terrorist organisations not currently engaged in an active murder campaign for political and constitutional ends—and the bad terrorists, who are. [Interruption.] The Minister may laugh, and his hon. Friends may find that amusing, but the people of Omagh did not find it amusing two weeks ago, and I did not find it amusing over the past 30 years.
If the amendments were accepted, they would allow the Secretary of State to take into account the punishment shootings and the beatings that are the method by which the larger terrorist groups keep control. It is they, not the smaller organisations, that are in charge of their various areas. The other smaller fish swam in the sea created by the Provisional IRA and the Protestant paramilitary organisations in their own ghettos.
If the Secretary of State is eager to discover the extent of the involvement of those groups in such activities, she should inquire of the RUC whether the weapons used in recent punishment shootings in Belfast, one of which ended in the death of the victim, have a history of being used by PIRA. Perhaps she is already aware of the answer. The Minister will know from my remarks that I am aware of the answer. It would be instructive for the Committee if he would tell us the extent of the Government and police knowledge in that regard.
Without the changes that my amendments would accomplish, the Bill will be a dead letter—of that I have no doubt. "Savage assault by a dead sheep" are words that spring to mind. A telling remark to that effect was once passed in the House. That is the most likely outcome of the Bill.
Large sections of the community in Northern Ireland have the impression that the intention is to create an illusion of determined action when none is intended. If the legislation is considered effective, why was it not introduced 30 years ago?
In May this year, I wrote to the Chief Constable and asked him a simple question—whether he could provide me with information about the number of murders committed by terrorists over the past 30 years for which no one had been brought to court. His answer, which arrived in a letter dated 29 July, stated that the total number of murders attributed to terrorists was 2,719. The number of cases in which charges were brought—only those cases where a person or persons were charged with the offence—was 938. The number of cases where no charge was brought—the unsolved murders—was 1,796. Charges were brought in just over 34 per cent. of cases. There may be a few more, as some cases are still in the pipeline.
If the House and the Government are prepared to forget 1,796 murdered people, I can tell those on the Front Bench that the people of Northern Ireland are not. The

people who committed most of those murders are those in the Provisional IRA, who are outside the ambit of the Bill. They should be brought firmly within it.

Mr. Ingram: I do not think that I will be able to convince the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) of the merits of my argument, and he has not convinced me of the merits of his. We come from entirely different understandings of where we are, where we are going and what we hope to achieve in Northern Ireland. History was mentioned in earlier debates. I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that he is trapped too much in history. He is not looking towards a new horizon. If we do not begin to look towards those new horizons, we shall never achieve them.
The legislation is specifically targeted. The measures deal with specific organisations: The hon. Gentleman's amendments would make the evidence and inference provisions bite on convictions for membership of all proscribed organisations under the Northern Ireland legislation. He has made that clear. He wants everyone to be included in the legislation. However, his approach ignores all the recent developments, and the substantial and significant statements made in the past 24 hours by Sinn Fein and, by implication, the IRA. That is an important development.
3.30 am
Only time will tell whether those developments have full effect, but we have to give encouragement to such developments, as we have to give encouragement to the so-called loyalist paramilitary groups who are on unequivocal ceasefires in our judgment. We have to make the best judgment—it is a fine judgment at all times, and at all times it is put under close scrutiny. That scrutiny is dependent on the very best intelligence and information made available to us by the Chief Constable of the RUC and the security forces. Those judgments are based on better information than the hon. Gentleman is able to pick up from gossip, rumour and innuendo from other people. Our judgments are based on facts and facts alone. That is what makes a better quality of judgment.
To widen the scope of what we seek to do in the Bill would not be productive in terms of what we are trying to achieve overall in the peace process in which we are engaged. The Bill is a specific, targeted measure. It deals with a particular group that we know about and other specified groups that I mentioned in earlier debates which may be moving into a different frame of activity. If that is the case, it is to be welcomed.
That is why I catalogued in my winding-up speech on Second Reading all the events that had taken place. Most of the events were attributed to the Real IRA. There is a new grouping out there. It is a smaller grouping. It does not have the full support of the wider Republican community. That is clearly the case. Statements have been made to that effect. Gerry Adams certainly supports that view, if we can take those expressions of opinion at face value, and I think that it is right that we do so.
So we have a different landscape to deal with now. We are dealing with a specific group of organisations. If any other group breaks its ceasefire, it moves from its current status to become one of the specified organisations. We will constantly keep that under review.
I come back to the earlier point about how long this legislation will prevail. If we go back to the position in which we have been for the past 30 years, it may apply to other groups, and it may be around for some time. We hope not. If we are right, and it is not around for a long time, we shall have succeeded in our objectives with the specified groups referred to in the legislation.
I cannot ask the Committee to accept the amendments. I would prefer it if they were withdrawn, but if not, we shall oppose them.

Mr. William Ross: I cannot say that I am disappointed in what the Minister has said. It is perfectly in keeping with the policy that the Government have been following these many months past—in fact, since they came to office—of buying off the Provisional IRA regardless of the unsolved murders.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I rise because the Minister nodded in disagreement with my hon. Friend's comment. The tragedy is that clear cases of breaches of ceasefire even in the past six months have been overlooked. Sometimes those who think that we are living in the past fail to remember that we live in the Province. The fact that the Government are acting on better intelligence than that of which we are aware is not necessarily a correct argument, given that the Government know that people from the Provos have committed heinous offences but have not been brought to justice for various reasons. When one considers the past, one must bear it in mind that it was a Labour Administration who de-proscribed PIRA and allowed it to grow and develop.

Mr. Ross: In the light of the Government's attitude, which is not going to help the long-term interests of Northern Ireland or, indeed, of the United Kingdom, and as they are clearly unwilling to accept any sensible point of view, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. The Government will find out eventually that my assessment is correct.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 3, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—
`(b) is not complying in full with the Belfast Agreement (Cmnd 3883)'.
This is a probing amendment, but we believe that it would strengthen the Bill. I can say precisely what is behind it. We should now make sure that organisations that are not complying in full with the Belfast agreement are proscribed. We are looking specifically at those that are not co-operating with the decommissioning commission.
It is not good enough for an organisation simply to say that it renounces violence and is operating a ceasefire. We believe that an organisation can renounce violence and operate a ceasefire only when, as it says in the Belfast agreement, it is co-operating with the decommissioning commission and ensuring that the large arsenals of guns and explosives are handed in over a two-year period. Unless that happens, it seems that we have no reason to believe that the paramilitary organisations on both sides of the community divide can be taken at their word when they say that there is a cessation of violence or a ceasefire.
We commend the amendment to the Committee. It would strengthen the Bill and would also put further pressure on paramilitary organisations to decommission. As I said on Second Reading, I greatly welcome the announcement—yesterday's announcement, as it is now—that Martin McGuinness had been appointed by Sinn Fein-IRA as its negotiator or co-ordinator with the commission. That is a welcome first stage. We need to see the loyalist paramilitaries doing the same fairly quickly. I know that that is a wish that the Minister and the Prime Minister share. I commend the amendment, although I suspect that we are not going to get much further.

Mr. Ingram: We are all watching the clock, as there is very little time on this part of our proceedings. We have covered a wide range of issues in the past three hours, but it is a pity that we have not—

It being three hours after the conclusion of proceedings on Second Reading, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 61, in page 2, line 46, after `court' insert 'or jury'.

No. 62, in page 2, line 48, after 'belongs' insert
`or, as the case may be, belonged'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

ENGLAND AND WALES

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 42 in page 7, line 7, leave out 'an' and insert 'a terrorist'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 43, in page 7, line 8, after 'event' insert 'involving acts of terrorism'. 
No. 45, in page 7, line 28 at end insert—
'(5A) The fifth condition is that the offence contemplated by the agreement would be a serious arrestable offence as defined by section 116 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.'.
No. 50, in page 8, line 12, after 'Any', insert 'terrorist'.
No. 51, in page 8, line 23, leave out first 'an' and insert `a terrorist'.
No. 57, in clause 7, page 9, line 28, leave out 'an' and insert 'a terrorist'.
No. 58, in clause 7, page 9, line 28, leave out 'an' and insert 'a terrorist'.
No. 59, in clause 7, page 9, line 39, after 'event' insert `involving acts of terrorism'.

Mr. Beith: We now embark on a three-hour period during which we are intended to discuss a substantial change in conspiracy law, as well as Report and Third Reading. A great deal of detail is contained in this part of the Bill and because of the need to discuss it at greater length, my right hon. Friends and I felt that the business motion had got it wrong. Experience has demonstrated that. To continue Second Reading for six hours or so, and


devote such a relatively small period of time to important detailed changes between 3.40 am and 6.40 am is not a good way to tackle such major legislation.
The clause and the amendment are part of what I would describe as the Home Office add-on to the Bill—a fact that was given away when the Prime Minister said that the Government had taken the opportunity of the recall to propose the measures, which were put before the House in a different guise two years ago, as a private Member's Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). The case for the Government doing so was based on the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam bombings, with which there was no known United Kingdom connection. As far as I am aware, there has been no suggestion that any conspiracy took place within the United Kingdom to further those, so the connection is, indeed, distant.
Perhaps the most important point is that people did not expect the Bill to concern anything other than terrorism. Many people outside the House and, I suspect, some inside it have still not realised that it covers a great deal more. The object of this amendment, and those grouped with it that stand in our names, is to ensure that the conspiracy provisions relate to terrorist acts and offences, not to a wide variety of other matters.
The rather odd title of the Bill illustrates my argument. It is the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill, not a prevention of terrorism Bill, which is what we normally deal with on such occasions. The bit about conspiracy only partially concerns terrorism. It is a wide-ranging measure and because it is so wide ranging it does not justify the urgent proceedings that have been applied to Northern Ireland. We were advanced reasons for dealing with those matters by urgent procedure; the situation following the Omagh bombing, the fact that the Irish and United Kingdom Parliaments are acting in parallel and at the same time and the need to deal as quickly and as effectively as we can with republican splinter groups. None of those arguments applies to this section of the Bill.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I raised that point about whether these clauses necessitated urgency in an earlier intervention, when I tried to get the Home Secretary to clarify. If the Government are aware of circumstances that would require us to enact this legislation urgently, given the events in August and the terrible bombings, the House could well look upon it with a sense of urgency, but that case has not been fully made. The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise a few warning signals.

Mr. Beith: It could be relevant to our considerations if the Government indicated that a sense of urgency should apply to this part of the Bill. It would be a different case from that which applies to the rest of the Bill, but the House would clearly listen to it. We would listen to the Home Secretary, if he advanced such an argument.
Unless we amend the Bill as I have suggested in the amendments, it could include a wide variety of provisions, some of which people would not want it to include, and others that they might want in legislation of this sort, but that they would not want to be rushed through as the Bill

has been. The conspiracy provisions of the Bill could relate, for example, to a civil obedience campaign that involved the commission of criminal offences, both in another country and here.
For example, if an environmental pressure group decided that it wanted to stop the loading of a cargo of toxic waste bound for this country from a port in Germany or Poland, and embarked upon planned action including the criminal offences of interfering with dockyard operations and marine traffic, that could be a conspiracy in the terms of the Bill, and could be the subject of a charge.
I do not think that that is desirable—and even if it were thought desirable, we should debate it in a more careful and measured context than the way in which we are considering the Bill at this time in the morning and under such a strict timetable.
Other activities, too, are included under this part of the Bill. For example, financial crimes, sex offences, drugs offences, and anything else that is a criminal offence in this country and in the country to which the conspiracy relates, are all covered. That is a canvas far wider than the focus on terrorism on which all the justification, both for the Bill itself and for the urgency with which it is being pursued, has been based.
We believe that a reference to terrorism will at least target the legislation more effectively, and exclude some of the protest groups against repressive regimes that are a subject for concern in all parts of the House. Here we enter a difficult area, with which we also seek to deal by means of a later amendment about the Attorney-General's discretion.
3.45 am
Whereas there is a widespread concern that acts of plain terrorism should not be planned and organised on British soil to take place in other countries, that concern would not be anything like so great—indeed, it might not be present at all—if we were talking about groups seeking to organise resistance to a regime that allowed no other means of change or opposition, in a country in which there were no democratic procedures.
One of the distinctions that I would draw, which at least defines some categories of terrorism, concerns the fact that if someone is planning to place a bomb in a city so that many civilians will be killed, I would regard that as an act of terrorism even if I were hostile to the regime in the country in which the bomb was being planted.
The terrorism definition, if it focused on such situations, would help us in some degree to deal with the concern in many parts of the House that the legislation should not be applied to groups seeking to assist legitimate resistance to an illegitimate regime allowing no democratic means of change.

Dr. Palmer: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that he is proposing to replace a wide net with an ill-defined net? Does he have a clear definition of terrorist acts?

Mr. Beith: It is for the courts to decide what they consider to be terrorism. In any case, it hardly falls to me to have to define terrorism when the Government base much of the rest of the Bill on an understanding of what


terrorism is, and use the term widely in all the other related legislation. Indeed, they have created an assumption that the Bill is about terrorism, and almost everything that has been said publicly about it has backed up that assumption.
It is true that the Home Secretary helpfully told me last week that he proposed to include conspiracy measures in the Bill, although I must admit that at that point I thought that he would confine them to the terrorism element. That may simply stem from a lack of deduction on my part, so I do not mention it as a criticism of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman tried to assist.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: In a moment.
I do not think that that message was widely understood, even after the Bill had been published yesterday. After its publication I talked to Members of the House who still thought that it was about terrorism, and did not realise that it had very wide additional implications for all sorts of other offences.

Mr. Corbyn: I can see the point that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make about terrorism, but it is not good enough simply to insert the word "terrorist" without trying to define what that is. We have discussed before the difficulty in defining the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, depending on the regime, on one's perception of it and on whether one agrees with it, among other things. It is a bit unwise to insert the word without any definition of it.

Mr. Beith: Terrorism is defined in the prevention of terrorism legislation—with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar, having opposed quite a bit of it over the years—and primary legislation introduced by Governments that he otherwise supported. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary challenges my use of the word "otherwise".
That was merely the third leg of my argument—that the targeting on terrorism would be of some assistance with a problem that we also seek to address by a later amendment to this part of the Bill. The principal leg of my argument is that the Bill is supposed to be legislation to deal with the problem of terrorism. Understandably, the Home Secretary has sought to extend it to deal not only with Northern Ireland terrorism but with other kinds of terrorism of which we have had recent experience across the world—that is, terrorism organised in one country and carried out in another, although that experience has not, in the more recent cases, been especially relevant to Britain.
However, in the course of doing so, the Home Secretary has taken off the shelf measures that extend over every area of criminal jurisdiction, far beyond terrorism, and used an inappropriate procedure to do that. He is doing it by means of a Bill that is being rushed through in urgent procedure, without allowing the opportunity for wide consultation. That is not a reasonable way to proceed, and that is the principal reason why I believe that we should re-focus the Bill on terrorism.
I merely made the incidental point that such a re-focusing might be of some help in at least excluding from the scope of the conspiracy section some of the

actions of protest organisations against repressive regimes, but I would not rely on the amendment alone to achieve that object. We should return the Bill to the purpose for which the Prime Minister announced when he spoke after Omagh—to deal with terrorism. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 go far beyond that scope. That is an inappropriate way to use the very rapid mechanisms—with which we are all uncomfortable—for passing the Bill.
The vast majority of us recognise a need to pass legislation quickly in respect of certain aspects relating to Northern Ireland. I do not believe that that need exists, or that the procedure is appropriate, for the rest of the Bill, so I believe that we should get back clearly to terrorism by making these amendments.

Mr. Michael: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) began by speaking about the limited time available. The Committee has debated, very maturely, a series of amendments on clauses 1 to 4 and has covered, in the process, an enormous range of issues. I think it was, as the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) suggested, the House of Commons at its best in debating important issues, and I hope that that will apply to the way in which we debate conspiracy. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed certainly approached the manner seriously and constructively.

Mr. Tony McWalter: I accept that we have had quite a long debate today—we are now in about the 15th hour—but we have not had a great deal of time to do a lot of the work that we should have liked to do. For example, I have not had a chance to read the Criminal Law Act 1977, yet clause 5 is entirely composed of modifications to that. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that, although we have had a lot of time for debate, we have not had time for preparation, thought, discussion and a rational debate, which would really have allowed us to do justice to these important measures.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is a new Member of the House, but for the House as a whole these are not new issues; they have been debated for considerable periods. When we dealt with the Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill, which was drawn up by the previous Government but introduced as a private Member's Bill, the issues were considered in a Friday debate. That Bill went much wider than the element of conspiracy in the clauses that we are debating; it went into the whole subject of incitement.
It might be instructive for my hon. Friend to research previous legislation and to read those debates. Most of the debate was about incitement and how we should answer the Mandela question—how do we ensure that unintentional interference with political aspirations abroad are not accidentally caught by the Bill? I took part in those debates, which were extremely interesting and constructive.

Mr. McWalter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Michael: Not for the moment.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was right in saying that the trigger for the Bill was a series of acts of terrorism. The prime trigger was events in Omagh, referred to repeatedly by Members, which horrified us all.


The second trigger, or set of triggers, was events in Kenya and elsewhere: in those places, terrorist acts affected several hundred people, and there was clearly an international element that may or may not have related to events planned in this country.
The urgency—in respect of both the conspiracy parts of the Bill and the earlier parts—related to acts of terrorism; but, as other debates made clear, the need for legislation to deal with conspiracy in relation to a range of issues is extremely important. I shall deal with a specific example shortly, but the right hon. Gentleman was right to emphasise that this could apply to sex offences and drug trafficking. Indeed, there are other elements—for instance, other forms of violence, if they happen to relate to organised crime rather than terrorism.
Victims of violence of that sort might say that a narrow definition of terrorism would not be a great consolation, given that the events affecting them would fall outside the scope of the legislation. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to accept that the Home Secretary intended to pursue legislation relating to conspiracy, which we said for a long time was necessary, which was debated in the House on a number of occasions, but which was not brought to fruition. It would have been ludicrous for us to deal purely with the terrorism element, although that was the trigger for the opportunity, as the House was returning to debate those elements.
I do not rest on that argument alone; the amendment is technically defective in terms of application. The definition of terrorism is in the PTA and the EPA, but not in these amendments, or in the Criminal Law Act 1977 in which they are to be inserted. There would be a technical difficulty. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman is making a serious point, but that would be a conclusive reason for not accepting the amendments, because it would destroy the effectiveness of the clauses as a whole. I make the point simply in order to be accurate; in the rest of my comments, I would prefer to engage the serious points made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Audrey Wise: It is rather a put-down to say to an hon. Friend, "You are a new Member; you were not here when we discussed it all." I was here when we discussed it all, and I distinctly remember that the issues were so complex, and the amount of support on all sides so restrained, that twice we failed to secure a quorum. That does not suggest to me—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have given a little leeway, but hon. Members must speak to the amendments. The history of these matters is important, but we are confined to the amendments.

Mr. Michael: Let me say briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) that I intended no put-down. I simply said that there was a degree of continuity. If my hon. Friend remembers those early debates, she will remember that the complexities were about not the conspiracy element of the Bill, but the incitement element, which involved enormous difficulties. The difficulty of the amendment is that it would restrict the conspiracy offence in the Bill to terrorist offences. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made it clear that that was his intention. However, it is not practicable to single out terrorists from other criminals in the way proposed. In many instances when carrying out

their initial inquiries, it will not be clear to the police or to the other investigating agencies whether the offence of arms trafficking, for instance, is terrorist or criminal. It would be undesirable to tie their hands in this way.
4 am
We might hamstring the effective investigation of arms trafficking when it may not be clear from the outset whether those involved are terrorists, rather than other serious organised criminals. In any event, we believe that it would be wrong in principle to exclude from the scope of the provision the unacceptable activities of arms traffickers or other organised criminals plotting overseas crimes in this country.

Mr. Beith: Trafficking in arms by a person resident in this country is an offence which the police can already investigate under existing law.

Mr. Michael: Yes, if the trafficking in arms takes place in this country, but not if it takes place abroad and the requirements in terms of conspiracy to undertake such events abroad as defined in the Bill do not apply. The right hon. Gentleman is right in relation to some offences but not others, so the provisions are important. The amendment would create a loophole through which organised criminals could plot in this country to carry out serious crimes abroad, and that cannot be right. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
There are some nasty individuals whose activities are destructive to people's lives here and abroad who would not fall within a definition of terrorism. I have made the technical point about the lack of a definition, but even if a definition such as that which exists in other legislation were to be introduced to meet that point, it would exclude those people. Surely that cannot be right, and I am sure that the Committee would not wish that to be our approach.

Mr. Mullin: If my hon. Friend the Minister is unable to accept the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—for the perfectly understandable reasons that he has given—will he consider amendment No. 45, which, instead of inserting the word "terrorist", would insert the words "serious offence"? That would meet the point that he is making. I am reluctant to be too helpful because I think I have probably given my share of help to the Government already.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is never anything other than helpful, although his is sometimes the sort of help that forces one to use more brain cells than one wants to use. That is the strength of his contributions. There are problems with taking the approach that he suggests. We are seeking to address serious offences, and my hon. Friend will recall debates on measures on the security services, for instance, in which it was questioned whether the definition of serious crime imported into police legislation might cause such difficulties as to make the intentions completely impossible to achieve. I understand and accept the spirit of what my hon. Friend is saying, and I hope that I can encourage him.
Amendment No. 45 would restrict the conspiracy offence to serious arrestable offences and would, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Police


and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, limit it to the most serious criminal offences in common law. I need to deal with the effect of that in specific terms. The definition of serious arrestable offences excludes any serious offences that are also arrestable for the purposes of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and therefore punishable with at least five years' imprisonment. It does not even include grievous bodily harm with intent to kill, which is punishable with life imprisonment under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Nor does it include offences such as the use of violence for securing entry; taking, possessing or distributing indecent photographs of children; or going equipped for stealing. Indeed, the amendment would have the perverse effect, which I am sure my hon. Friend would not intend, of removing the existing jurisdiction for conspiracies here in respect of the commission of certain sexual offences against children abroad.
Under the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996, which, again, a number of my hon. Friends who are here will remember and on which serious debates took place in which we examined jurisdiction in this country in relation to events abroad, definitions were agreed that would be undermined by my hon. Friend's amendment, so a conspiracy here to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl abroad would no longer be triable in our courts—nor would a conspiracy to carry out an indecent assault overseas on a boy aged under 16.
We should not deny ourselves the opportunity of taking firm action to deal with the many offences that, although they may be triable on a summary basis, are not minor or insignificant in the effect that they may have.
The existing law on conspiracy does not distinguish between different offences within the UK. We have deliberately sought not to limit in the Bill the offences to which the conspiracy provisions apply. The requirement in the Bill for the Attorney-General's consent to prosecution provides a crucial safeguard against the prosecution of malicious and frivolous cases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) will recall that, when we debated the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill in opposition, we specifically proposed inclusion of the Attorney-General's judgment as a way of getting a threshold, so that only the intended target would be hit—events that are serious and for which these powers should be used. We should not put in the Bill a definition of seriousness that would have the unintended consequence—I stress again: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not intend this—of exempting from prosecution many of the cases that I am sure all hon. Members want to see pursued.
The amendment would create a loophole through which terrorists and other criminals could plot in this country to carry out serious crimes abroad. That cannot be right. That is why I hope that my explanation will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and that he will be willing to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Öpik: As a matter of interest to the Minister, the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Bill 1998—the Irish document that mirrors this one—does include definitions of a serious offence and may have other

definitions; I have not read the whole document. Therefore, the Irish Government would take a different view from that of the Minister.

Mr. Michael: It is always difficult to draw exact comparisons between different jurisdictions; that is true in relation to Irish legislation and legislation in this country. Indeed, it is difficult sometimes, as we realised in one of the earlier debates, to ensure that in aiming to do the same for Scotland as we do for England, Wales and Northern Ireland we get it exactly right because the law is different and it is a difference that we have to respect, even though it again tests our knowledge and intellectual capacity from time to time. We have to tease out the right way of doing those things. I have explained the difficulty, certainly in relation to our law, which is all that I can speak about from experience, although not from qualification.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right to point out that, under his legislation, the Attorney-General would be the one to initiate prosecutions. Many of us have concerns about that, one of which is what scrutiny there would be of the Attorney-General's decision. Would it be subject to parliamentary scrutiny? Many of us are concerned that some future Attorney-General will come under pressure from a mixture of political and commercial interests in a repressive country to silence opposition that is based in London and to curry favour with those interests. Does the Minister recognise that there are serious concerns about these aspect of the legislation?

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Michael: I think that I need to take breath in order to give way. I have taken breath and I give way.

Mr. McNamara: On the role of the Attorney-General, there is confusion about the new subsection (6) to be inserted by clause 5(2), which allows the preceding provisions for a matter to be instituted only by or with the consent of the Attorney-General to be superseded. It says:
The Secretary of State may by order provide that subsection (5) above shall not apply, or shall not apply to any case of a description specified in the order.
Subsection (7) continues:
An order under subsection (6) above—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument".
The power is unnecessary if we are specifically saying that the Attorney-General should have it.

Mr. Michael: Several points have been raised that are relevant to the debate. We have to understand the issues in context.
I confess that I was puzzled when I read the first draft of the Bill. I am pleased to say that there is a satisfactory explanation. It is appropriate for the Attorney-General to make a judgment on offences involving terrorism that have some political sensitivity and might involve the exercise of the powers in a way that the House did not intend. On the other hand, there are some offences, which might arise frequently, on which the House would have no doubt. I refer specifically to the abuse of children abroad. The Committee would not regard the pursuit of those who pursue very young children abroad as politically sensitive. The power allows the Secretary of


State to come to the House and ask that certain categories of offence should not require the Attorney-General's judgment. The Government might want to specify some paedophile offences, but that would not happen on the say-so of the Secretary of State. It would have to be done through a statutory instrument. We have broken with precedent by saying that that must be done through the affirmative resolution process. The measure could not be implemented without the specific agreement of both Houses. If the conspiracy provisions were used against paedophile activities, the Attorney-General's time would not have to be taken up.
That is a current issue. In the Evening Standard—I was going to say that it was this evening's edition, but it is last night's—there is a report of 40 people being held in worldwide raids related to child sex on the internet. The incidents involved the trading of children and what were described as "sick and revolting" sex images of children, some as young as two. We all find that horrific and unacceptable. There were simultaneous police raids in the United States, Finland, Austria, France, Sweden, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Norway, Australia and this country. No one in the Committee would doubt that that should be pursued. We are clearly dealing with conspiracy. We all agree that there is no political sensitivity about that being pursued with vigour. If the conspiracy requirements under the Bill enabled stronger pursuit of those who use and abuse children—sometimes their own children—for the production of images, we would be in favour.
That is an example of a case in which a category might be exempted. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), having had the same instinct as me to ask how the power would be used, will accept that that is the intention. I hope that he also accepts that we intend to use the affirmative resolution procedure rather than following precedent by using the negative resolution procedure. That shows how serious we are about the issue. The House should be able to take a decision before the provisions are implemented, rather than merely having an opportunity to react after the event.
Two of my hon. Friends referred to the powers of the Attorney-General, which is quite understandable. Hon. Members on both sides are trying to ensure that those powers, if approved by the House, can be used for the purposes that Members would want them to be used for, and cannot be used where it would be inappropriate. All hon. Members acknowledge that there are those who ought to be caught—those who are prepared to undertake horrific acts of terrorism or, because terrorism is often seen as having a political element, acts of gangsterism and violent crime.
In deciding whether to prosecute or to approve prosecution, the Attorney-General takes into account all aspects of the public interest. "The public interest" is a general term; there is no precedent for singling out any specific element as being more important than another. In the House of Commons, in 1951, Lord Shawcross gave classic expression to the doctrine relating to criminal prosecutions and I should be happy to go into detail if colleagues wish. The point is that human rights considerations, such as conditions in other countries, might be taken into account, where appropriate, by the Attorney-General in coming to his decision.
4.15 am
It impossible to predict the circumstances in which public interest considerations would arise, but experience shows that, where the evidence in a particular case is available and the facts are clear, it is usually also clear whether the public interest lies in prosecuting. Crimes such as terrorism or murder do not cease to be crimes just because of the political aims involved. The facts of the event justify the public interest—indeed, the public interest lies in continuing to secure the peace and tranquillity of the nation, which is what we seek each day, in the prayers before Parliament sits. That is the prime objective that the Attorney-General has to consider in respect of the public interest.

Dr. Palmer: I have been following my hon. Friend's argument closely and, if I understood him correctly, he said that problems of definition make it undesirable to restrict the Bill to, for example, terrorist offences, serious offences, or some other such formulation. However, what he has just said suggests that, in practice, he would expect the Attorney-General to limit the application to what we, in common parlance, would call serious offences—that is, the Attorney-General would not wish to bother with relatively minor crimes and would concentrate on cases involving murder, terrorism and violence.

Mr. Michael: In colloquial terms, there is a lot in what my hon. Friend says. The difficulty is in drawing a line without excluding many offences that people might think it ludicrous to exclude. We argued for many years that the requirement that the Attorney-General should make the judgment is an important one. He has to take public interest considerations into account; the seriousness of the offences would form part of that public interest and pursuit of trivial crimes committed abroad would not, generally speaking, be in the public interest.
Those are the sort of considerations that the Attorney-General would take into account, along with other considerations. As I have said, no definition limits what the Attorney-General can take into account when considering the public interest, so he would certainly consider many issues that my hon. Friends would want to be taken into account. In that way, we can ensure that only those cases that the House intends to be pursued and that we really want to tackle will be pursued.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: The public interest may include considerations such as not alienating a major trading partner. The Minister spoke of criminals and terrorists, but what about environmental activists who are concerned about logging in the tropical rain forest in Brazil, which is an important trading partner with Britain? They might suspect that the indigenous peoples may suffer terribly as a result of logging. What considerations would form in the Attorney-General's mind in such a case?

Mr. Michael: The simple answer is that it would depend on what was relevant to the decision that the Attorney-General was to take. The human rights situation in another country could be taken into consideration in deciding where the public interest lay. I am sure that hon. Members can think of examples of occasions on which they would want the Attorney-General to take the decision to prosecute.
Expressing the doctrine of the Attorney-General's power, Lord Shawcross said that the responsibility for the eventual decision rests with the Attorney General, and he is not to be put, and is not put, under pressure by his colleagues in the matter. Nor, of course, can the Attorney-General shift his responsibility for making the decision on to the shoulders of his colleagues. If political considerations affecting government in the abstract arise it is the Attorney-General, applying his judicial mind, who has to be the sole judge of those considerations.
In explaining the context, Lord Shawcross also said that there might be a variety of issues of which the Attorney-General was informed through the knowledge of his colleagues, so that he could take them into account. Those issues might include some that have been mentioned tonight. The Attorney-General's responsibility is clear: what he can take into account is not limited.

Mr. White: I am a relatively new Member, and I am slightly confused about the Attorney-General's role. Sometimes the Attorney-General has taken decisions that have caused a public outcry. How would the House or individuals go about securing redress when taking out or not taking out a prosecution caused an outcry?

Mr. Michael: That would work largely through the normal processes of accountability. The Attorney-General is a member of the Cabinet and answers to the House. We are talking about the decision to agree to proceed with a prosecution. Once the decision is taken to allow that to happen, the case has to go through the courts and the rights of appeal have to apply. There are also other constraints and pressures on the Attorney-General to act properly. His role is to act as the guardian at the gate for the appropriateness of the prosecution and to consider the public interest. Issues concerning which cases to prosecute and the degree of seriousness would come into the ambit of his discussions. I hope that that is helpful.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend may have made the situation worse, as he appears to be saying that the Attorney-General could undertake a prosecution and that, once it had been undertaken, the House could not involve itself in any way in questioning that decision, because it had become sub judice by virtue of the fact that it could go before a court. We are concerned that a combination of political and commercial pressures could encourage the Attorney-General to take action against people for actions happening in another country.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend conflates two entirely separate points. I said that, as the Attorney-General is a Cabinet member, there are processes of accountability; in a separate point, I said that his decision to take out a prosecution is not the end but the beginning of the process, which would lead to decisions in the courts, which would have to consider the case that had been made out.

Mrs. Fyfe: Where does that leave people who could in no sense be called terrorists but who are perhaps democrats trying to oppose as effectively as possible some

despotic regime abroad? For example, they could be Afghan women who oppose the Taliban. I have gathered from the hours of debate that they would be allowed to write pamphlets but not to do much else. Is there any way in which they could have guidance about how far they could go in the commission of minor unlawful acts that would help their cause because the normal democratic process is of no use in their case?

Mr. Michael: To answer that I shall have to approach the issue from a different direction. I am trying to be as helpful as possible in responding to hon. Members. To understand the matter, one must turn to page 7 of the Bill and read the clause that sets down the conditions that create the possibility of a prosecution. They include an act, happening or event in another country. The second requirement is that the act or event
constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country".
The third condition makes it clear that it has to be an offence in this country as well, and the fourth condition is that an act of some sort in this country is the trigger for the conspiracy and the prosecution. The four conditions have to be satisfied. For example, if my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is afraid that a simple way to express views democratically in another country was illegal in that country, it would have to be illegal here to be caught by the provisions and would have to satisfy the other requirements. In addition, the Attorney-General would have to look at the matter and decide that the public interest would be served by a prosecution here in relation to those events.

Mrs. Fyfe: The point that I am trying to get across is that such dissidents would not know in advance what the Attorney-General would find acceptable, especially when circumstances are so fluid as to be affected by notions of public interest at a given point in time. An action that was an offence in another country could be minimal and not a case of murder or kidnapping or blowing up buildings. It might be an offence here too, but it could be trivial in the context of this country. In the kind of regime that I am talking about a woman can have her nails pulled out for wearing nail varnish. What kind of activities can those people engage in that are of any use under such regimes? Are they confined to stay on the safe side and write pamphlets?

Mr. Michael: I do not want to trivialise the issue, but as far as I am aware the pulling out of nails for wearing nail varnish has not been suggested as a possible offence in even the most draconian proposals by any party in Parliament. People would know what was an offence in this country, and an act that is an offence in another country is not sufficient in itself to fall within the provisions. The act must be an offence in this country as well and the other conditions must be satisfied. We are not debating a measure that anybody will consider using for trivial offences or for expressing an opinion or criticising a regime. Such actions are not offences in this country. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill asked that question during a debate on the conspiracy and incitement measure that was considered about two years ago. I expressed reservations about that legislation on precisely the grounds that she raises.
Those dangers are not present in what we are presenting here. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said clearly at the beginning of the debate, and which I say with equal force now—

Mr. Allan: The specific offence that I would like the Minister to consider is that of criminal damage. That is clearly an offence here and will be in another country. It is frequently a consequence of political activity against a regime, but I would not consider it sufficient reason to prosecute someone in this country if it were committed in the exercise of someone's democratic right against the sort of despotic regime that has been described.

Mr. Michael: That is quite a good example. As always, the hon. Gentleman is helpful. It would be unwise for me to enter into the mind of the Attorney-General, but I have great confidence, particularly in the present incumbent of that role. It would be a total shock to me not only if he regarded the painting of graffiti against a regime as justification for the use of these powers, but if an Attorney-General of any party were to consider that appropriate. I see that my right hon. and learned Friend encourages me in my—

Mr. Canavan: He will not be in the job for ever.

Mr. Michael: Earlier it was predicted that my right hon. and learned Friend would be in the job for ever, so I would not like to contradict comments made by colleagues earlier. I certainly hope that he is.

Mr. David Heath: Does the Minister accept that by extending the scope of the provision beyond terrorism and serious offences to any offences which are offences in this country and elsewhere, he opens the Attorney-General to all sorts of additional pressures in the exercise of his discretion in that the public interest then becomes conflated with the national interest? How is the Attorney-General to respond to requests from regimes with which we may not be on friendly terms but which are asking for prosecutions? He has two alternatives. Either he says that he will not prosecute, but he has no criteria to put forward to explain his decision, or he accedes to that pressure and prosecutes in circumstances in which the House may well not wish to see a prosecution take place and yet we would have no way under the Bill of limiting that discretion which is given to the Attorney-General.

Mr. Michael: Hon. Members need to consider the exercise of the powers of the Attorney-General in law. They are not powers that can be exercised at whim. I return again to the definition of Lord Shawcross who said:
It is the duty of an Attorney-General, in deciding whether or not to authorise the prosecution, to acquaint himself with all the relevant facts, including, for instance, the effect that the prosecution, successful or unsuccessful as the case may be, would have upon public moral and order, and with any other consideration affecting public policy.
That includes the sort of issues that the hon. Gentleman raises.
All of us in coming to the concept of the Attorney-General having this responsibility rather than the power of taking the decision might think that all that the Attorney-General has to say is whether he would like something to happen. It is not. He has a clear duty to weigh the public interest in the balance. Precisely the sort of areas of concern that hon. Members are raising are appropriate.
Overseas Governments may be encouraged by new legislation to present evidence of what they see as crimes being committed linked to activities in this country, but they do that now on the basis of the existing law. It is for the police to investigate any such material and to see whether crimes are being committed, and that will remain the case. There is nothing new in having to tell a foreign Government that no action will be taken under our law. Our relations are mature enough to be able to cope with the disappointment that that may cause. It is happening all the time.
What we are doing in linking the responsibility of the Attorney-General to the conspiracy proposal is using a tried and tested method of setting a threshold which is far more meaningful than limiting it to terrorism or limiting it with a definition of seriousness. That is a tried and tested way of doing it.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He seems to have accepted that commercial and diplomatic pressures are matters which the Attorney-General must take into account, yet he is providing no floor that gives protection to the Attorney-General in the exercise of that discretion and allows him to say, "No, those are categories of crime that I shall not consider. I can explain to a foreign Government that those are not matters that a British Government would wish to pursue in the context of the Bill." That is a grave omission that can lead only to future problems in our foreign relations. I ask the Minister seriously to consider putting some sort of de minimis provision into the Bill.

Mr. Michael: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that he understands the responsibilities of the Attorney-General, who must consider any factors and information that relate to the public interest. The Bill is not limited in that respect, so it does not exclude commercial or trade considerations and so on. The Attorney-General would have to consider the matter and take a decision in the public interest, which includes human rights, our obligations under international law and other appropriate considerations. That wide interest is part of the accepted and settled way in which the Attorney-General exercises his functions.

Mr. Öpik: Before the Minister moves on, may I assure him that this is not an esoteric debate. My parents' home country, Estonia, was very much dependent on the help of Estonians outside Estonia in its bid for independence, yet under the Bill Britain would undoubtedly have been faced with a dilemma—whether to respond to the former Soviet Union's demands to turn in Estonian activists in this country who were helping to fight for independence and violating the law, perhaps through some form of mild civil disobedience, or whether to ignore the Bill and support Estonians who were trying to get indepensdence for Estonia.
As I listen to the debate, I would counsel the Minister to take these concerns much more seriously, as they would have had a practical impact on the many peoples and activists on this side of the former Soviet Union's iron curtain who were trying to achieve independence in exactly the way that has been described by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. The measure is about conspiracy in this country. It is not about sending people back anywhere. It is not about deporting people or putting them under another jurisdiction. It is only about prosecuting them in this country under UK jurisdiction on matters that are offences in this country and satisfy the other requirements that I listed. The only thing that people have to fear is that if the Attorney-General says yes, they will be prosecuted in the UK according to the normal requirements of the Bill for the relevant part of the UK.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Dr. Starkey: rose—

Mr. Michael: I return to the question of what we want to catch. I referred earlier to the holding of individuals today in relation to child sex over the internet. That involved the national crime squad and co-operation across countries because of the complexity of the internet and the sophisticated use of it. International events may have horrendous effects on people in this country and abroad. They would be dealt with under the conspiracy provisions, which is why they should not be limited, as has been suggested. We have built in safeguards. Each element must be satisfied in order for a prosecution to take place.
I ask hon. Members to look not only at those elements on which they think that things could go wrong—one can see why they would not go wrong because the permission of the Attorney-General would not be forthcoming—but at the people involved in conspiracy to commit serious violent offences abroad who would be excluded were the Committee to accept the amendment and the limitations.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister said that this was not about sending people out of the country. I may have misunderstood, but I thought that there was a possibility of deportation. If I am wrong, I would like to be told so.
Mr. Lord, to put it bluntly, I have been listening to the Minister both in the Committee and on the screen, and this is not a subject that the House of Commons should be debating at 4.39 am. There are very important issues here. For heaven's sake, I say to my hon. Friends, cannot this wait until October or November?

Mr. Michael: I say to my hon. Friend, as I said at the start of my remarks, that the trigger for the Bill was, first, the events in Omagh and, secondly, the events in Kenya and elsewhere. Deaths of individuals took place and it was clear that there was an element of international activity and conspiracy. Those conspiracies may well have an

element in this country. They may not. But the events raised the need for us to proceed on something on which we had aspired to proceed for some time. These matters are not new. They were debated when we were in opposition.
The elements about which we had reservations when we were in opposition when we debated the Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill are not raised by this Bill because we have left out the incitement element. We have concentrated on the real mischiefs that need to be addressed in terms of international crime. I believe that the House would be wrong not to use the opportunity to ensure that the Bill is put on the statute book. The case for it is strong and the defence for the reservations is also strong. I understand why my hon. Friends want to probe these issues. That is why I have tried to respond to the many interventions that they have made. They are genuine and reasonable concerns, but I believe that the case is overwhelming for saying that we should go ahead.

Ms Abbott: It is really no good the Minister at this time in the morning trying to make the Committee's blood run cold with talk about child sex conspiracies. We know that the motivation for the legislation that is being presented in this very inopportune way has little to do with paedophilia as such and a lot to do with insistent pressure over the years from regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Nigeria which wish to deal with their dissidents. It is diversionary to try to frighten us by raising an issue that is not the substantive issue that motivates the Home Office in taking this draft Bill off the stocks and tacking it on to this Irish legislation.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend has her own way of making her point and she makes assumptions which I refute totally. I hope that my hon. Friend and all my colleagues accept that I have honestly tried to portray the target that we wish to hit. We have been very specific in the way in which we have introduced the legislation. My hon. Friend can make her judgments if she likes. I refute and reject the judgment that she chooses to make. The powers will deal with some very serious mischiefs and some very nasty people. They may be insignificant to my hon. Friend, but they are not to me.

Mr. John McDonnell: I understand the Minister's argument about the significance of paedophilia, which we all want tackle. We all want to ensure that we rid ourselves of child abuse. However, I understand, although I do not agree with the argument—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Madam Speaker takes a dim view of electronic devices going off in the Chamber. I hope that it will not happen again.

Mr. McDonnell: I shall plead innocence on that one.
I understand, although I do not agree, that the Government have responded in the first part of the Bill to the events in Omagh. However, has any evidence been presented to the Government showing that there has been some form of international terrorist activity planned in this country, linked to the bombing in Nairobi or Tanzania, and which has prompted the urgency of the


second part of the Bill? This is a very serious matter. If such evidence has not been presented to enable us to come to an urgent view, I agree that we should be considering the matter properly in the new Session of Parliament.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend misses the point. The legislation needs to be in place so that if there has been an element of conspiracy in this country in those or other incidents of terrorism or serious crime, the Bill's conspiracy provisions would allow prosecution in this country.

Mr. James Clappison: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am not accustomed to the role of coming to his rescue in these matters. The more I hear of this debate, the more I am inclined to agree with the assertion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that this is a less than ideal way of dealing with these matters—that was a masterly piece of understatement.
Is not the long and short of the Liberals' amendment that it would restrict the provision to what they describe as terrorist offences? It would not necessarily deal with the problem that they perceive in the legislation, but it would exclude many other types of crime involving, for example, football hooliganism, drug dealing and serious fraud. The public would like to see us dealing with them and preventing conspiracies being hatched in this country and inflicted on other countries.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I hope that I have conveyed that point to him in this debate. It is of course not ideal to deal with legislation during a short recall of Parliament, but, as I said, the recall of Parliament is triggered by events in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. We have taken the opportunity to introduce something to tackle a mischief that has been perceived for a long time and which the House has wished to tackle. Previously, the debates have been about how we make sure—

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Michael: No, I am bringing my remarks to a close.
In the past, the debates have been about how we make sure that effective legislation does what we intend, which is to detect terrorism and serious crimes rather than insignificant or minor incidents or deal with protest movements. We have done that. The legislation is satisfactory in that regard and contains the necessary protections. The amendment would undermine the very purpose of the legislation, and the House would quickly regret having limited the legislation in that way. I hope that having heard the debate and my responses to a wide variety of interventions, some of which ranged way beyond the amendment before us, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Beith: The intervention by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) from the Opposition Front Bench was accurate. The hon. Gentleman said that the amendment would prevent the Bill from dealing with football hooliganism and a variety of other matters.
There are many mischiefs that the law should attend to, but I do not claim the privilege of tacking them all on to the Bill. If that happened, the Bill could do an enormous number of things. Indeed, it is already about an enormous variety of things, some of which are significant. However, it is not our way to deal with significant matters in one night's debate and without the opportunity of prior examination of the Bill unless there are overriding reasons for our doing so. I am not criticising the hon. Member for Hertsmere; I am explaining why I believe that it is important that we narrow the focus of the Bill to what it was originally supposed to be about.

Mr. Dalyell: In all the talk about the modernisation of Parliament, there is the question of pre-legislative scrutiny. Is not this a classic case for some examination of the deep issues? As soon as one starts to look, all sorts of creepy-crawly things come out from under stones. What we are doing is ludicrous.

Mr. Beith: The phrase pre-legislative scrutiny sheds some light on our proceedings today. We certainly have not had much opportunity for that, but that is in the nature of the Government's rapid response to events in Omagh and the need to do something about them. I feel strongly that the Home Office has tried to get on the back of events at Omagh to deal with matters that it may have considered important, but which do not require or lend themselves to a similar procedure.
The Minister was drawn into replying to a number of amendments about the consent of the Attorney-General, which we have not yet moved. We have sought to tackle another side of the problem in other ways. The Attorney-General safeguard is useful and was lacking in the original Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), but the safeguard is questionable in some respects. Given the autonomous nature of the Attorney-General's prosecution powers, he is not accountable to the House for them in the way that he is for his administrative responsibilities. Indeed, it is not thought appropriate that he should be accountable for decisions on prosecutions. Many questions remain about how views on the desirability of allowing organised groups that are resisting other regimes to operate in this country can be brought to bear on those decisions. However, we shall return to some of those matters In our debates on later amendments.
The crucial test on which the Minister relied for saying that we do not need to narrow the definition of what conspiracies can come under the Bill, as the amendments do, was that an offence has to be a crime in both the countries concerned, which is a low threshold indeed. It is an easy test to pass. Loads of offences are crimes in both countries. Criminal damage is an example that has been cited and that might be not merely graffiti, but breaking into or damaging a building, damaging vehicles or a series of other offences. In Britain, defining such offences as conspiracies would be unjustified because there are democratic means of protesting when one disagrees with something, but we might feel that they were justified in countries where there is no democratic means to do so. Such offences will be caught by this legislation unless we achieve some definitions. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is assuring me that, under the Bill, he would probably have been sent to prison in


this country for assisting his friends in Estonia in their courageous battle for independence. Many of them put their lives at risk to win the independence of their country, with the general support of the people of this country, who have always had a feeling for the Baltic nations, which suffered repression under the Soviet yoke for so many years.
Those actions are not terrorist actions, but they are a crime in both countries. Therefore, we have sought to restrict the application of the conspiracy provisions of the Bill. The wide-ranging interventions and questions have reinforced my view that it was not appropriate to deal with something so complex on the back end of an urgent Bill relating primarily to Northern Ireland.
Parliament has a responsibility to consider legislation, to get it right in detail and to ensure that it does its job properly and is not prone to achieving the opposite effects to those intended or putting people in jeopardy for actions for which they ought not even have to fear prosecution. My party consented to a serious compression of the discharge of that responsibility to respond to what happened at Omagh. We consented to parliamentary proceedings that give no opportunity for the normal wide outside consultation on the contents of the Bill because we believed that to be exceptionally justified in those circumstances. We cannot extend that justification to the other parts of the Bill.
The Minister advanced arguments about the evils of paedophilia and the fact that conspiracies related to that offence could exist in this country. Of course, we agree, but this legislative mechanism is not the appropriate way to deal with those. The Minister did not seek to rest his case primarily on the technical arguments, although he advanced them, saying that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) would undermine legislation on sexual offences enacted a few years ago. However, that is because the Government have interlinked the two pieces of legislation; it is not the fault of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. That defect and any technical defect in our amendment can be remedied in another place tomorrow.
The Government have at their disposal the means to meet the wishes of the House, and to do so in a technically satisfactory way. Instead, they are asking us to accept severely attenuated procedures, with limited debate and no realistic outside consultation, to deal with matters for which that is not justified by the arguments about urgency. I do not think that we can do it.
I say to hon. Members who have a variety of doubts about this part of the Bill that this is the first, and perhaps the best, opportunity that they will have in the course of these morning hours to set some limit on the extent of the conspiracy powers. Because we consented to the urgent procedures in the Bill, we have to show that we do not feel them to be right for matters that, although important, ought to have the normal legislative scrutiny that the House affords. We therefore wish to press our amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 214.

Division No. 360]
[4.56 am


AYES


Allan, Richard
Rendel, David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Breed, Colin
Webb, Steve


Bumett, John



Harris, Dr Evan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Öpik, Lembit
Mr. Donald Gorrie.




NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Flint, Caroline


Alexander, Douglas
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Allen, Graham
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Foulkes, George


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Gapes, Mike


Banks, Tony
Gardiner, Barry


Barron, Kevin
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Bayley, Hugh
Gibson, Dr Ian


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Begg, Miss Anne
Goggins, Paul


Berry, Roger
Golding, Mrs Llin


Betts, Clive
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Blizzard, Bob
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Boateng, Paul
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Borrow, David
Grocott, Bruce


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Grogan, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Bradshaw, Ben
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Hanson, David


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Browne, Desmond
Healey, John


Buck, Ms Karen
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Burden, Richard
Hepburn, Stephen


Butler, Mrs Christine
Heppell, John


Cabom, Richard
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cann, Jamie
Hope, Phil


Caplin, Ivor
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Caton, Martin
Hoyle, Lindsay


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hurst, Alan


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Coaker, Vemon
Illsley, Eric


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cohen, Harry
Jamieson, David


Coleman, Iain
Jenkins, Brian


Colman, Tony
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cranston, Ross
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Crausby, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kidney, David


Darvill, Keith
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davidson, Ian
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dean, Mrs Janet
Laxton, Bob


Denham, John
Leslie, Christopher


Dobbin, Jim
Levitt, Tom


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Doran, Frank
Linton, Martin


Dowd, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Edwards, Huw
Lock, David


Ennis, Jeff
Love, Andrew


Etherington, Bill
McAvoy, Thomas


Fisher, Mark
McCabe, Steve


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McDonagh, Siobhain






Mackinlay, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Spellar, John


Merron, Gillian
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michael, Alun
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moffatt, Laura
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mudie, George
Stringer, Graham


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Norris, Dan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Olner, Bill



O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pendry, Tom
Timms, Stephen


Pickthall, Colin
Tipping, Paddy


Pike, Peter L
Touhig, Don


Pollard, Kerry
Trickett, Jon


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prosser, Gwyn
Vis, Dr Rudi


Purchase, Ken
Wareing, Robert N


Quin, Ms Joyce
Watts, David


Quinn, Lawrie
White, Brian


Raynsford, Nick
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wicks, Malcolm


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rooker, Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Wills, Michael


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Roy, Frank
Woolas, Phil


Ruane, Chris
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wyatt, Derek


Salter, Martin



Savidge, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Sawford, Phil
Mr. David Clelland and


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Greg Pope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Ann Clwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 7, line 10, after 'Kingdom' insert 'other than a country or territory to which subsection (2A) applies.
(2A) This subsection applies to any country or territory which—

(a) is the subject of any embargo on trade agreed by the General Assembly of the United Nations, the European Union or Her Majesty's Government;
(b) has not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; or
(c) in the opinion of the Secretary of State is a country or territory where human rights are not respected.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 44, in page 7, line 13, after 'territory' insert
`provided that the offence, if it were an offence in any jurisdiction in the United Kingdom, would not infringe the terms of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on the 4th November 1950.'.
No. 46, in page 7, line 28, at the end insert—

`(5A) The fifth condition is that the procedure for the trial of the offence in that country or territory, if it were the procedure for the trial of the offence in any jurisdiction in the United Kingdom, would not infringe the terms of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950.'.
No. 48, in page 8, line 4, leave out 'condition is' and insert 'and fifth conditions are'.
No. 49, in page 8, line 5, leave out 'a question' and insert 'questions'.
No. 53, in page 8, line 36, at end insert—
`who shall have regard to the human rights situation in the country concerned.'. 
No. 83, in page 8, line 36, at end insert—
'(5A) Before deciding whether to consent to proceedings for an offence triable by virtue of section 1A above, the Attorney General shall have regard to the standards of respect for democracy and human rights in the country or territory where the result of the conspiracy was intended to occur and whether that occurrence was intended to combat injustice or oppression.',
No. 84, in clause 6, page 9, line 16, at end insert—
'(5A) Before deciding whether to consent to proceedings for an offence triable by virtue of Article 9 above, the Attorney General shall have regard to the standards of respect for democracy and human rights in the country or territory where the result of the conspiracy was intended to occur and whether that occurrence was intended to combat injustice or oppression.'.
No. 81, in clause 7, page 9, line 30, after 'Kingdom' insert 'other than a country or territory to which subsection (1A) applies.
(1A) This subsection applies to any country or territory which—

(a) is the subject of any embargo on trade agreed by the General Assembly of the United Nations, the European Union or Her Majesty's Government;
(b) has not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; or
(c) in the opinion of the Secretary of State is a country or territory where human rights are not respected.'.
No. 85, in page 10, line 19, at end insert—
'(7A) No proceedings for an offence triable by virtue of this section may be instituted except by or with the consent of the Lord Advocate.
(7B) Before deciding whether to consent to proceedings for an offence triable by virtue of this section, the Lord Advocate shall have regard to the standards of respect for democracy and human rights in the country or territory where the result of the conspiracy was intended to occur and whether that occurrence was intended to combat injustice or oppression.'.

Ann Clwyd: I feel like one of the creepy-crawlies mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). After sitting here for 15 hours, I resent having to move an amendment at this time in the morning—especially as so many hon. Members have made it clear that they resent clauses 5, 6 and 7 in particular. Whatever other reservations they may have about the Bill, they resent those clauses being tagged on to it, and I entirely agree with them. We should have had time to consult human rights organisations, for example, about the implications of the proposals in the Bill; but we have not had time even to read the Bill properly ourselves, apart from the aspects in which some of us have a special interest.
If Ministers had been sensitive to the feelings of the Committee, they would have withdrawn clauses 5, 6 and 7. They would have left them for another occasion, when


the House returns in October. There is no reason to rush through those provisions, but we have rushed through a law under which anyone in Britain who conspires to overthrow a Government—however awful and dictatorial—could be guilty of a criminal offence.
During the past 15 hours, we have heard examples of how this law could have been used in the past. If it had been in force 30 or 40 years ago, refugees in this country as diverse as Mahatma Gandhi and General De Gaulle would have been caught. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has admitted, the word "terrorist" itself is very imprecise. The historical odium attached to conspiracy law ought to give us much cause for concern. As others have said, yesterday's terrorist is tomorrow's freedom fighter.
As chair of the parliamentary human rights group, I am particularly concerned about the many campaigning organisations in the country that may somehow or other, through their activities, be caught up in the Bill. Last night, at about half-past 11, I was telephoned by someone who told me that the US Congress had just voted a substantial sum for an organisation that I chair called Indict, which aims to bring Saddam Hussein before an international criminal court. Congress has also voted money for another organisation based in London, the Iraqi national congress, which has as one of its aims the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
I recognise that this Government would be glad to see the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, but a previous Government who were trading with Iraq might not have been quite so happy. Such a Government might want to take action under the Bill against an organisation that was committed to the overthrow of that regime.
Those who campaign for democracy in Indonesia might want to distribute literature calling for the overthrow of President Habibie. This country has considerable trading links with Indonesia, and our arms trade continues apace, unfortunately, with the country. We might argue, as people do—wrongly, in my view—that jobs would be at risk in this country if that trade ceased, for whatever reason. We know that, in the past, British aid has been used to sweeten some of our arms deals with Indonesia. Suppose that we believed that the people campaigning in this country for the overthrow of President Habibie were a threat to jobs and to trade. What action might a Government take under the Bill to repress those people?
Many hon. Members have mentioned the situation in Saudi Arabia—again, a country with which we have a large arms trade. We do not know how much, because the Al Yamamah arms deal is still a secret in this country. However, Saudi Arabia has been identified by our human rights group as a repressive regime which tortures people in custody. We have uncovered horrific cases where human rights have been violated in that country.
If someone in this country criticised that regime or campaigned to change it, what would we—with our big arms trade with Saudi Arabia—do? What attitude would the Attorney-General take to somebody who might jeopardise that trade? We know that this proposal was a knee-jerk response by an Opposition Member who wanted to placate Saudi Arabia when it failed to extradite a dissident from this country. Nobody knows what would happen under this Bill, and I am concerned about all those groups.
I would prefer to see clauses 5, 6 and 7 scrapped altogether. Let us consider them at length at another time, but they should not be pressed tonight. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is a reasonable man. I congratulate him on the way in which he has responded to the debate. We want to help him as far as possible, but not when we have serious concerns about the proposals in clauses 5, 6 and 7.
This law will, I suspect, be applied inconsistently according to political pressures and to placate Governments who are friendly to Britain, not according to the principles of justice. I do not intend to press the amendment, but I shall vote against clause 5 stand part.

Mr. McNamara: I will be brief.
My hon. Friend the Member for—

Ann Clwyd: Cynon Valley.

Mr. McNamara: For somewhere in Wales. At this hour of the morning, I would find it difficult to say Ballybunion.
My hon. Friend has advanced a compelling argument, so I do not want to go over the particular incidents that she has mentioned. I want to deal with the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and myself.
We seek in the amendment to set criteria by which one can examine whether a particular action should be taken. If these provisions are to go through—I agree with my hon. Friend that we would rather not have them at all—the action being followed in or for that state or territory should not infringe—if it were an action in the UK or in any of the UK's jurisdictions—the European convention on human rights. Those criteria are the entitlement to a fair trial, an independent judiciary, the ability of the defendant to see the evidence against him, and a balanced attitude towards both the defence and the prosecution. That is what is contained in the European convention.
If we were to adopt that attitude, it would go some way to meeting many of the misgivings that my colleagues have on these clauses. It would not overcome them, but it would go some way to meeting their misgivings.
We would then add a fifth condition to the four conditions that have to be met to bring such an action:
the procedure for the trial of the offence in that country or territory, if it were the procedure for the trial of the offence in any jurisdiction in the United Kingdom, would not infringe the terms of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome".
If my hon. Friend the Minister is not able to accept the amendment—gracious though he has been all evening, I have the feeling that that will probably be his attitude—it would be helpful if he could indicate that the criteria in the convention are the type of criteria that will affect the Attorney-General's decisions. This is more concrete, more direct and a better set of criteria than anything called public interest, whatever that may mean at any particular time.
Therefore, we would be able to meet the particular problems that have been enumerated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) in relation to countries such as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and all the other


countries where we have a real fear that human rights are being abused. We have our own criteria for the proper way in which a trial should be held. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke about throwing the procedure open to the world, saying that we do it for the Council of Europe countries, for the United States and for India, so why should we not do it for others?
We should do it only for those others that have the same criteria for holding a fair trial. If we were certain that those criteria would be observed and followed properly, we could at least say that there would be the necessary objectivity and criteria for us to see how decisions were made. Public interest is nebulous. Here is an opportunity to seize the initiative of an ethical foreign policy and the incorporation of the convention. We can extend the principles of the convention throughout the world.

Mr. Allan: I speak in support of Liberal Democrat amendment No. 53. Our aim is similar to that of the Labour Members who have spoken—to make human rights explicit in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has said, it is not enough for the Attorney-General to be given broad discretion. He must be given the appropriate tools to justify his decisions. One such tool is that he can say that he is not prepared to take action because of the human rights record of a country.
I should like to give some more difficult examples than those already mentioned. In relation to Kashmir, many thousands of British citizens are organised politically in this country in a way that could be described as related to a conspiracy to carry out acts that may be criminal in India or Pakistan. Many citizens fear being drawn in to being described as part of a conspiracy because they have collected money or organised in a political party here. I am not going into the rights and wrongs of the case, but they have a justified concern about the Bill that needs to be answered.
Examples from closer to home include the recent situation in Bosnia, or that in Kosovo now. Those supporting the Kosovo rebels are supporting a group committing actions against the legitimate Serbian Government. The Bill must incorporate the respect for human rights that would enable the Attorney-General to say that our response would be proportionate.
Where people have justifiable concerns about the human rights situation in another country or have proof of violations that have been carried out against their people, a little more leeway should be allowed on their actions in this country. We do not want any legality given to those who carry out terrorist acts such as bombing a civilian area or hijacking and bombing aeroplanes. There is no justification for that under any regime, but there are grey areas in which incorporating the notion of human rights in the Bill would give us more clarity in dealing with them.
The human rights concern must lie at the heart of all our legislation, and should not be overridden by commercial or other concerns. We want it to be incorporated through our amendments or those of the Labour Back Benchers.

Mr. Canavan: I support what my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and for Hull,

North (Mr. McNamara) have said, but I should like to concentrate on amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85 in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing).
The three amendments are somewhat similar: amendment No. 83 refers to the position in England and Wales; amendment No. 84 to the position in Northern Ireland; and amendment No. 85 to the position in Scotland. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Bill already requires the consent of the senior Law Officer—the Attorney-General—before a prosecution can take place of a person accused of conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom. Therefore, it seems reasonable to place a statutory obligation on the Attorney-General to take into account the standards of democracy and human rights in the country where the alleged offence was intended to be committed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley gave the example of people in this country who are intent on the overthrow of the fascist regime in Iraq. It could be argued that, if they went so far as to plot the assassination of Saddam Hussein, that assassination, if committed in this country, would, in strict technical legal terms, constitute a criminal offence. It certainly would constitute a criminal offence in Iraq.
Therefore, the principle of dual criminality would apply, so anyone plotting in this country to get rid of Saddam Hussein by the use of force could fall foul of the legislation. It seems perfectly reasonable that the Attorney-General should be under a statutory obligation to take into account the nature of the regime in the country where the result of the conspiracy is intended to occur, and whether that occurrence was intended to combat injustice or oppression.
There seems to be a difference between the application of the Bill in Scotland and its application in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, the Bill does not require the consent of any Law Officer before a prosecution can take place of a person accused of conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom. Amendment No. 85 would insert a requirement for the consent of the Lord Advocate in Scotland, just as, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the consent of the Attorney-General would be required.
If there is no statutory obligation for the Lord Advocate himself to look at the papers on the case and to give his consent, presumably it could be left to the local or regional procurator fiscal to decide, on the normal criteria, whether a prosecution should take place. When dealing with offences of a highly political or potentially extremely serious nature, we should make it incumbent on the Lord Advocate personally to take the decision on whether to prosecute. In other words, there should be a safeguard in Scotland similar to the safeguard laid down in the Bill for England and Wales.
The Secretary of State, if he is to wake up and reply to this debate, or the Minister of State may well say that procedure for prosecution is different in Scotland. No doubt the Lord Advocate and/or the procurator fiscal will apply the normal criteria. Perhaps he can refresh our memories as to what the criteria are.
I understand that the criteria include whether there is sufficient evidence to obtain a successful prosecution; whether the prosecution would be in the public interest; whether the alleged offence is serious enough; and whether the person accused has any previous convictions or has received any previous warnings from a procurator fiscal about his or her conduct. There may be other criteria on which the Minister can elaborate.
5.30 am
It would be helpful if there were a statutory obligation on the Lord Advocate in Scotland parallel to the obligation on the Attorney-General in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The record of human rights and democracy—or the lack of them—in the appropriate country should be one of the criteria on which the decision whether to prosecute is based.
It is a great pity and an absolute disgrace that, in the whole of this debate, not one Scottish Office Minister has sat on the Front Bench. I do not know whether any of them are in the Palace of Westminster, or even in London. We now have a Scottish Office Minister who is not a Member of either House, but four of the six Scottish Office Ministers are Members of the House of Commons; yet not one of them has come here to explain the Bill's implications for Scotland, which are different in many respects from its implications for England and Wales.
I know that the two Law Officers are not Members of the House of Commons—one is a member of another place—but during our many hours of discussion, someone should have spoken on behalf of one of the Scottish Law Officers.

Dr. Starkey: All the amendments are designed to get across one essential point, which has largely been accepted by the Minister in some of his previous replies: that offences that might be deemed terrorist offences, whether against property or against people, are of a different nature when they are committed in a democratic country, where there are ample democratic means of achieving political ends, from when they are committed in a wholly despotic country in which the ordinary democratic avenues are completely closed and more assertive methods may be the only means of changing the political situation. Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, in particular, represent an attempt to get that included as a factor that the Attorney-General must take into account when considering whether a prosecution would be in the public interest.
I should like to add an additional criterion, which does not, strictly speaking, come under the terms of human rights. When offences are committed in a country or territory under illegal occupation, that should be a material consideration, and should change our opinion about whether it was in the public interest to prosecute those who conspired in this country to commit the offences.
I am concerned about the amorphous concept of the public interest and the way in which the Attorney-General appears to have the impossible task of trying to second-guess what the public interest may be. It is not unreasonable for Parliament to be in a

position to give the Attorney-General some guidance on the objective factors that he—at the moment it is he, but it might be she in future—should take into account in assessing the public interest.
The objective criteria should be related to human rights and democratic freedoms within the country that is being complained of, and to the status of its Government in international law. That would take account of the circumstance that I have suggested, of a Government illegally occupying the territories or countries in question.
It is unlikely that any of the amendments will be accepted, and it would be helpful if the Minister could try to be more definite about the precise criteria that the Attorney-General will be expected to take into account when assessing the public interest. Those are: issues of human and democratic rights, and the standing of the Governments in question under international law.

Mr. Corbyn: I support the amendment that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and I obviously support the amendment that was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) because I am one of the signatories. Trying to deal with clauses 5, 6 and 7, which have been tagged on to the legislation, at this time is utterly ridiculous. This is an important Bill with far-reaching implications. Plainly, it is not well drafted and is open to all sorts of interpretations. I pay tribute to those hon. Members who have managed to table sensible and intelligent amendments.
We should not have to deal with the Bill at this time. There should have been a separate Bill to be dealt with either when we returned in October, if it were that urgent, or in the new Session in November. Such legislation should be dealt with properly, but the Bill has all the hallmarks of a measure that somebody in the Home Office has for a long time wanted to put through Parliament. The opportunity was taken to remove it from the shelf and shove it in, and we are stuck with it.
The amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North and I tabled would ensure that there was at least some consistency, in that the European convention on human rights would be the basis for any prosecution. Such a safeguard is also incorporated in the amendments that were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, because the United Nations would be involved. As the legislation stands, it would be possible for a regime such as the one in Nigeria to claim that the Ogoni people, who were led by Ken Saro-Wiwa, were terrorists. That regime claimed that they were terrorists who operated against the oil installations in Nigeria.
Such operations are illegal in that country and would be illegal here and, on that basis and because of a vast amount of commercial and other pressure, a British Government could prosecute a leader of the Ogoni people in Britain for raising funds to support his colleagues in Nigeria. Following the appalling way in which Saro-Wiwa was executed and all that went with that, I do not think that that would happen, but we can envisage a method of reporting building up a scenario in which British interests are damaged by people in Britain who are raising money for attacks on installations in Nigeria. The same could be said of what happens in many countries.
All over north London, in my constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and


of many others, dozens of small organisations are campaigning for justice in their countries. There has been the Nicaragua solidarity campaign, the El Salvador solidarity campaign, the Chile solidarity campaign, other campaigns relating to Latin America, such as that for Colombia, the trans-Caucasus campaign and campaigns involving people from Indonesia, Malaysia, India and China. It would be possible to make a case against almost any of them by stating that, somehow or other, they are raising money that is used to support illegal activities in their countries.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is right to say that safeguards are necessary. People who campaign against repressive regimes should continue to have their freedom in Britain: it would be extremely unfortunate if it were otherwise. There is no disagreement between us on that, but is my hon. Friend aware that some people who live in this country and who were interviewed justified the bombing in east African countries? I am not saying that those people were involved in planning those murders, but, if they were, surely they have no right whatever to be in this country.

Mr. Corbyn: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dealt with that point quite clearly when he said that to express a point of view on those bombings was one thing, but to support them in a practical sense was another. I have no time whatever for that bombing. What happened was abominable and appalling and I do not seek to justify supporting people who do such bombings.
Many organisations give support to liberation movements—or whatever description one wants to apply to them—in their own countries, which, it could be argued, are giving material comfort to those who are committing illegal acts. It is a grey and complex area.
My concern is that the Bill may result in enormous commercial and political pressures being put on a British Government to prosecute people who have done nothing other than campaign for justice and for democracy in a land that is denied it.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. We agree that the freedom to campaign is essential. Are we in agreement that people in Britain who have been given the right to stay here, who organise murders abroad for political reasons, should not be in a position to do that?

Mr. Corbyn: I am not sure why I am the subject of this questioning by the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, I am not in favour of people organising murders anywhere. My purpose is to see peace in the world and a system of government that provides for the democratic resolution of conflict. Unhappily, many people in the world do not enjoy that privilege. Many British companies are happy to make a great deal of money out of those countries where democracy is denied. Much money has been made by oil companies in Colombia, for example. There are many other examples.
I support the amendments. If they were accepted by the Government, they would make the Bill less bad. However, inserting clauses 5, 6 and 7, with all the dangers attendant on them, is a great mistake. Rather than, at nearly 6 am, trying to rush through the Bill, there should be serious

and proper discussion in which evidence and opinion can be taken from different organisations, such as Amnesty International and United Nations groups, which have a serious contribution to make to the debate. We legislate in haste and regret at leisure. There will be a lot of regretting to do if we start prosecuting people who legitimately pursue a peaceful solution to conflict in a violent world.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I well understand the concerns that have been expressed, and I could give other examples. For example, I recently read a book on the French Resistance in which the writer exulted at how he and his colleagues blew up trains, actions that we were supporting from this country. That is precisely the sort of area that would be blocked by the Attorney-General. That is why many of us who began by opposing the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) a year or two ago changed our minds when the mechanism of the Attorney-General was brought in.
I understand the concerns of colleagues, but they are essentially misplaced. My hon. Friends seek to fetter the discretion of the Attorney-General. The range of considerations is so wide that it is impossible to set out clearly answers to the multitude of considerations which may arise.
Consider, for example, the persuasive points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on human rights and the convention. The Kenya bombing was an outrage. It was clear that whoever was responsible for that bomb outside the US embassy was wholly unconcerned about the loss of life which was likely to follow. More than 200 innocent Kenyans were killed, apart from those in the embassy and adjoining buildings. I heard an individual in this country almost exult in that, saying that if the cause was served, the deaths of those Kenyans was very sad, but that was just one of those things that happen.
5.45 am
Are we to say that, had we doubts about the validity or the legitimacy of the judicial processes in Kenya, we would take a different view? Kenya may be deficient in some ways, but we are broadly happy with the judicial processes. If anyone in this country had plotted or sought military materiel or anything else involved in the Kenya bombing, that could not be justified, whatever our concerns about judicial processes in that country. That is the real dilemma that we face. It was wrong, and it would be wrong even if the Kenyan judicial system were highly deficient.
Our starting point must be the fact that there is a deficiency in our law, a lacuna that must be corrected in a proper democratic way. It must be dealt with according to the traditions of the House and appropriate safeguards must be built in for human rights reasons. That is why, as there is no immediacy in clauses 5 to 7, I follow, as always, the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
If the measure had been tackled properly, there would have been an opportunity for outside legal human rights opinion to be expressed in some sort of pre-legislative committee. There would have been a proper Committee stage. I am one of those who do not believe that the Home Office is infallible. One of my heroes, Cromwell, said:


I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
Even the Home Office legal experts may be mistaken. Even what they say can be improved upon. There is no urgency and no reason why we should have gone about the matter as we have.
I heard what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in an excellent speech. He observed that the matter had already been extensively canvassed in the abortive private Member's Bill. In my judgment, that was not so. It was a private Member's Bill, although I concede that the hon. Member for Eastbourne was acting as an agent for the Home Office. He received only a certain degree of support. The Bill was not studied with great care in the House or in Committee. If we are properly to advance, we must recognise that there is a lacuna, but the House of Commons must rectify it in the proper way, with proper scrutiny.

Mr. Öpik: If we did not have entrenched positions, Ministers should now be able to say that they will reconsider the measure and take a more balanced position in the light of the commonsense comments that have been made on the Floor of the Chamber. The intention is not to fetter the discretion of the Attorney-General, but to make it possible for him to exercise some judgment in the grey areas that arise when these clauses must be applied to a situation involving a country with a questionable human rights record.
Britain has been a crusader in the past, at least in some parts of the world, helping people who were seeking to create a democratic system where one did not exist. I draw the Minister's attention to the many examples that have been cited in the debate.
I know the example of Estonia well, and I know it to be a genuine case in which individuals operated from the United Kingdom to assist Estonian people to create a democratic system there. I am in no doubt that if Britain had not made it relatively easy for Estonian activists and fighters for independence to work from here, they would have had to find somewhere else from which to operate. I am also in no doubt that the work that the activists did in Estonia was illegal under the laws of the former Soviet Union. In some cases, it would have been illegal had it been done in the United Kingdom.
That does not make the activists terrible criminals; it simply underlines the core fallacy in clauses 5, 6 and 7, which is to assume that individual behaviour in other parts of the world can be assessed in the same context as behaviour here in the United Kingdom. That is the core mistake. It takes no account of the very difficulties that a fighter for independence or a political activist in a more oppressed part of the world has to face.
I hope that Ministers accept the need to think again about an inflexible part of the Bill which is causing many of us great difficulties, not least because we do not see the purpose of including it alongside clauses 1 to 4, which clearly have an immediacy and direct significance to the terrible tragedy of Omagh and the difficulties that face us in ensuring that the peace process in Northern Ireland can continue.
I throw the challenge to Ministers to discuss the matters privately among themselves, have some respect for the difficulties that we have raised here in Committee and

come back with something that makes it a little easier for us to swallow this part of the Bill and, more than anything, something that makes it easier for Britain to continue to play a leading role in assisting those individuals who have the courage to fight for independence in their own country and use the United Kingdom as a platform to do so.

Ms Abbott: I represent a constituency in the east end of London that has been a haven for political dissidents since the Huguenots in the 16th century. In the present day, we have Kurds, Algerians and Nigerian dissidents. It is because this legislation could affect the lives and liberties of many of my constituents that I rise to speak. It is wrong that we should discuss legislation of this gravity in the early hours of the morning. The matter should have been dealt with in a separate Bill introduced in October. It should have proper scrutiny. As my friend and colleague the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), said with such cogency, the arguments of urgency that applied to the earlier clauses of the Bill in relation to Northern Ireland do not apply to clauses 5, 6 and 7. There is no reason why we should be discussing these clauses at 6 o'clock in the morning.
I am glad to be able to speak in support of a set of amendments that has been moved so ably in the past hour. I do not wish to go over arguments that have already been made, but, precisely because the arguments of urgency do not apply, it seems to me that tagging on these three clauses is sheer opportunism by Home Office officials. It has all the hallmarks of a measure that has been dusted off and tagged on to the Northern Ireland proposals.
Much has been made of the safety mechanism provided by the Attorney-General and the fact that he will have to take questions of public interest into account. Much has been made of how we should not fetter him in examining the public interest, but I want to know—Ministers have not told me—precisely what aspect of the public interest he will give most weight to. Will he look at the public interest in relation to arms sales or in relation to international good governance? Will he look at the public interest in relation to ethical foreign policy or in not upsetting people who are big buyers of British goods?
We have the utmost confidence in the current Attorney-General. No one on the Labour Benches is seeking to fetter him, but we feel that he could benefit from more scrutiny of the legislation and more guidance and clarity. It is not clear how the legislation will work. I do not believe that that is clear even to Ministers and officials. The lack of scrutiny and the way the Bill is being bulldozed through Parliament is entirely lamentable.
In the coming months and years, this legislation could mean that some of the most repressive regimes in the world could reach their long arms into Britain and take action against people whose only real crime is that they are in political opposition to regimes that do not have the ordinary democratic processes that we know. The way in which clauses 5 to 7 has been introduced is wrong. They are ill drafted and ill thought out. There is no justification for provisions of this nature being introduced in this way. I am glad to have had the opportunity, albeit briefly, to support an important group of amendments.

Mr. Dalyell: I have two questions of fact. The first, following on from the speech of my hon. Friend the


Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), is whether the Crown Office was consulted at an early stage. Was the Lord Advocate consulted? To what extent were they consulted? This is not simply an arcane question, because there are Lockerbie issues involving the importance of Scottish law about which we have heard a great deal. The question of fact is, to what extent was the Crown Office consulted?
Secondly, what are the cost implications? As I understand it, a phenomenal amount of money is already spent by Scotland Yard units monitoring various ethnic organisations and various countries' organisations. When one starts to take legal action against these organisations, bearing in mind all the family involvement, surely there must be cost implications and implications for police time. Could the Minister quantify the likely costs?
Finally, I say this to the Home Secretary at 6 am: he is the rarest of political creatures—a seemingly successful Home Secretary. He is certainly an authoritative one in this Government and he has done many good things. I believe that he has sufficient authority to do what has been done before. There is a precedent for a Minister going back to the Cabinet and saying that he has heard what the House of Commons has to say, that he is uneasy, that perhaps his parliamentary colleagues have a point, and that his Cabinet colleagues should postpone the action that they propose to take.
I do not think that members of the Conservative Front Bench will quibble if I use the example of Iranian sanctions. [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) nodding. Ministers went back to Mrs. Thatcher, as she then was, and said that there was great difficulty in the House of Commons and that they believed it to be genuine. They said that there was a problem of retrospection, and that perhaps she should postpone her proposed action and think again. I say this in no purgative spirit, but that was the first of Mrs. Thatcher's U-turns.
I suppose that I am asking the Home Secretary to make a minor, mini U-turn. I am asking him to go back to his colleagues and explain that there are great difficulties about tagging on clauses 5 to 7. I think that I speak for most of my colleagues when I say that, if he were to do that, it would be no disgrace for him. It is not disgraceful to put something before the House, to find that the House of Commons takes a more critical view than expected and then to start work on it again.

Mr. McDonnell: I wish to speak because, in the spirit of the Bill, I do not want people to infer that my silence is support for the legislation, or any form of guilt. The debate on the amendments has been a revelation. I realised during our debate on the previous group of amendments that my support for Greenpeace might be seen as part of a criminal conspiracy. During the debate on this group, I have realised that I have form as long as one's arm, given my support for Chile Solidarity, anti-Vietnam campaigns, law campaigns and support for the Kurds and a range of other groups—all actions which could fall within the ambit of this legislation.
The omnipotence of the Attorney-General has been a revelation to most new Members of Parliament, as have the breadth of the concept of public interest and its vagueness. A number of us want to fetter the discretion of the Attorney-General when considering the matter. The

amendments would do that, because they draw attention to what should be his key consideration in exercising his omnipotence on that issue—the human rights records of other countries.
6 am
There are precedents. I can recall being a spectator in debates on extradition treaties in the House. In particular, I recall the debate on the treaty with India, which affected a large number of members of my community. During that debate, the human rights record of India towards Sikhs and other people who lived in or originated from the Punjab was discussed. That became a material factor in considering whether the treaty should be signed.
The previous Government also introduced a white-list system for asylum seekers and refugees. The human rights record and the judicial systems of the countries of origin or destination were material factors to be taken into consideration in decisions by the United Kingdom Government on whether someone should be accepted as an asylum seeker or refugee. There are precedents for certain elements of Government decision making being fettered as a result of considering the human rights record of certain states.
Therefore, I join other hon. Members in urging that, at this late stage in the debate on the legislation, which was forced on us, the clauses should be taken back. As an assembly, we should be mature enough to recognise that we may be blundering into an error that will drastically affect the lives of many of our constituents—not merely their well-being, but their very existence—so I urge reconsideration.
I would welcome a vote on the amendments, but, if we are not to have one, I want some assurance from the Minister that he will take the matter back to the Cabinet and that the Government will reconsider how we define the powers of the Attorney-General and the concept of public interest.

Mr. Winnick: In his reply, the Minister has a responsibility to give us some reassurance about the right of people who come to this country from abroad to demonstrate against foreign Governments. That is essential. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have campaigned on and off for more than 40 years about various foreign Governments. Indeed, I just reminded myself that it was as long ago as 1954 that, as a private citizen, I sent a telegram to try to save the life of the ex-Foreign Minister of Iran who had been involved with the Government of 1950–51—it did not do any good, although I wish that it had.
Our record in this country is essential. People are allowed to demonstrate. I have reservations about some of the remarks made by my hon. Friends, but I take on board the fact that foreign Governments could put pressure on this and future Governments and that dissidents living here could be pressurised by the police and the security authorities to stop what they are doing. That should not be the purpose, and we are told by the Government that it is not the purpose, of clauses 5 to 7; so, as I have already said, we need that reassurance to be absolutely clear about it.
The difficulty that I have with some of my hon. Friends is not—because of what I have just said, it cannot be—that we disagree over the right to demonstrate, the right


to give asylum and the rights of people who have been given asylum and who want to demonstrate against the Governments and regimes from which they have come. We are in total agreement on those matters.
However, there is a problem that some of my hon. Friends may not have quite faced. Mention has been made of Kenya, but I remind the Committee that last year, when the killings of foreign citizens took place in Luxor, Egypt, the Egyptian Government said, rightly or wrongly, that they had been planned in the United Kingdom, which was used as a safe haven for terrorists.
The Home Affairs Committee, including the Chair, one or two other hon. Members and me, closely questioned my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on that point. He may remember the occasion. We wanted to find out whether the British Government—the present or the previous incumbents—had inquired whether there were people in this country who had planned that terrible massacre of foreign citizens in Egypt.
We know why that massacre occurred: fundamentalist elements wanted to turn Egypt into a fundamentalist state and to stop tourism. That is why only foreign citizens were killed—to prevent foreign tourists from going to Egypt.
There are many aspects of life in Egypt with which I disagree. That is obvious. I am a democrat, and Egypt is nowhere near the kind of democracy that we would like to see. Although I disagree with the authorities there and with some of the repression that takes place, one thing is certain: I do not want to see it made worse and become a fundamentalist state.
The same applies to Saudi Arabia. We all know about the repression that occurs there, the amputations and the rest, which are repulsive to say the least. However, some of the people who are demonstrating, agitating and doing their best to overthrow that Government are not doing so for our reasons, to make it anywhere near a democracy. Far from it; those people are trying to make Saudi Arabia a fundamentalist state—and that includes the person mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Are we in favour of such people? We want reforms in those countries, and less repression, but we do not want regimes such as that in Afghanistan.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I do not think that there is concern in the House of Commons about the possible prosecution of people based in this country who conspire to carry out acts such as those that my hon. Friend described. We have had assurances from the Minister that such measures will not be used for fairly minor offences such as demonstrating against Governments, or even organising minor acts of vandalism and suchlike.
The concern is about actions in between those extremes, such as attacking military or other property within a state because that is the only way to take action in support of human rights. The example has been given of the actions of the military wing of the ANC in attacking property in South Africa.

Mr. Winnick: Fortunately, the position in South Africa has changed, the liberation movement has triumphed and we are in a new situation. I would argue that we should

not harbour in Britain people who want to commit such acts abroad. I do not believe that Britain should be a haven for such activities. It should, however, give every opportunity to people who want to use Britain by living in this country because they have been persecuted in their own countries, and to agitate for more democratic regimes. That is perfectly legitimate.
The line that we have to draw is a very fine one. We want to defend our democratic rights in every way, but at the same time there is a problem that we must face whether we like it or not—that there have been, and will probably continue to be, elements in this country from abroad who want to use this country for terrorist purposes. I do not think that we should give them any help whatever.
For those reasons, with many, many reservations, I consider that clauses 5 to 7 are probably appropriate, in view of the curse of international terrorism.

Dr. Palmer: So far we have discussed these clauses from a somewhat "Westminstercentric" point of view. We have asked under what circumstances Ministers or the Attorney-General should take one action or another. However, if we turn the matter round and look at it from the viewpoint of an individual who is considering what action he or she might be able to take in pursuit of a cause that they support, we see the difficulties from a slightly different angle. The Minister may be able to help in that regard.
At the moment, the individual who, let us say, wishes to campaign against the Iraqi Government is faced with a grey area in roughly five dimensions. There is the dimension of the severity of the act; we have heard discussion of everything from graffiti to assassination. There is the dimension of the democratic or otherwise nature of the regime.
There is the dimension of the adequacy or otherwise of the legal system, and the other considerations that might come under the heading of public interest, such as those relating to trade or diplomatic relations, and the fact that the Attorney-General, and even the political party of the Government, can change. That means that the usual principle of jurisprudence, that a person is expected to follow the law because he or she knows what the law is, applies to a much weakened extent, because people do not really know what the law is. It depends very much on what the Attorney-General of the day thinks it is, and people know that it might be different next week.

Mr. McWalter: As the hour is very late and these are complex matters, might my hon. Friend consider curtailing his remarks so that we may consider clause 5 stand part, with a view to dividing the Committee on that, so that these matters might then return to the House at a time when we are all capable of paying attention to the intricacies of his argument?

Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for my colleague's suggestion. I have nearly finished.
I suggest that we should accept that each of the various attempts to limit the powers of the Attorney-General on a specific axis—such as the Liberal Democrat proposal to limit them according to the severity of the offence, or some of the proposals to limit them according to the


nature of the country—is open to the criticism that it will not cover every conceivable situation.
However, it would help the Committee a great deal, and I believe that it would help individuals in the group that we are talking about, if the Minister would develop the comments that he made in response to my question about severity, and if he would confirm that, in cases where the alleged crime has a political element, considerations of the human rights record of the Government, and of the nature of the legal system in the country, would be expected to be important to the Attorney-General in reaching a decision on public interest.

Mr. John Greenway: This is likely to be the last substantive debate on our proceedings on this important Bill. During most of the past five or six hours, I have listened from the Front Bench to the debate—in fact, I believe that I have sat there for about 12 of the past 16 hours. Much of those five or six hours has shown that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was right when, on Second Reading, he said that this was not an ideal way for us to proceed with regard to these matters. However, he rightly signalled that we believe, as do the Government, that it is right to send a message to terrorists that we are united in every respect with the Government in the action that they have chosen to take.
The arguments that we have heard on this group of amendments included a plea from one or two Labour Members—the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has made the point on several occasions—for the Government to take clauses 5 to 7 back and reconsider them. I must tell the Home Secretary that that is a problem for the Government, not for us; but, were he to feel obliged to take such action, Opposition Members would continue to support the Government in seeking to introduce the measures in clauses 5 to 7, because we have long considered them to be right and appropriate. Nothing that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and I have heard throughout the night has deflected us from the view that they would make a valuable addition to our criminal law.
6.15 am
We understand and sympathise with the concerns that have been expressed, particularly on this group of amendments, about human rights. This is not the group on which to debate whether it is reasonable to rely on the Attorney-General not to prosecute in cases in which it would be inappropriate to do so, although we believe that it is reasonable to rely on him in those circumstances.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) put his finger on the real issue. The real point addressed in the amendments is that whether a country has a democracy of the standard that we enjoy, and whether it has the standard of human rights that we enjoy, is of no concern or interest to the terrorist who takes the innocent human lives of those who have nothing to do with the political arguments, or the political struggles, that take place in some countries. The atrocities in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi make that abundantly clear: 300 innocent lives were taken.
I think it inconceivable that the Committee would want to agree to an amendment—however well-intentioned—that effectively says that, in countries where human rights

and democratic standards are less than we would consider ideal, innocent people should be denied the protection that these clauses provide. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made plain, in the atrocity in Egypt that was precisely the point: innocent life was taken, quite deliberately, by an act of terrorism.
If some of that activity was plotted and planned from these shores, although we have voiced our concern—I have echoed it now—that we do not think that this was the ideal way of proceeding, it does illustrate the urgent need for Parliament to do something. I am not entirely surprised that the Home Secretary has taken the opportunity to add the clauses to the Bill.
It is tempting to say, at 6.18 am, that not only is this far from ideal, but it could and should have been handled better; but I am honest enough to admit that I suspect that I might well have done the same had I been in the Home Secretary's position. We must be honest. What has happened in Omagh—and, in the context of these amendments, in Dar es Salaam, in Nairobi and in Egypt in the past—should tell us one thing above all others: that the terrorist strikes when we least expect it. For that reason, we will support the Government again on Third Reading if there is a vote in a few minutes' time.

Mr. Michael: I thank the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for his last remarks. I accept his point that the way in which we are dealing with the Bill is not ideal, but he was honest in balancing his preference with a sense of the urgency. I congratulate all hon. Members on the quality of speeches in this important debate, in which some important issues have been raised.
I took particular comfort from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), because I remember the powerful speech he made in expressing his concerns and reservations about the Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill. The power of his speech on that occasion makes it all the more valuable to have his support for a measure that is intended to help combat a series of evils which affect people throughout the world. That is the reason for the urgency.
I do not wish to reopen the question of the role of the Attorney-General, which I dealt with in response to a series of questions in the previous debate. There is no doubt that human rights considerations will be important where they are relevant to the public interest consideration on which the Attorney-General has to make a decision. I agree with the hon. Member for Ryedale that the main question will be the nature of the offences that are the subject of consideration for prosecution in respect of conspiracy—particularly the likelihood of the indiscriminate killing of innocent men, women and children as a result of the activities of those involved in the conspiracy.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and many others, I have concerns about human rights and the freedom of people in this country to campaign abroad. Along with many others, I played an active part in the anti-apartheid movement, and supported the ANC. That has been in the forefront of my mind when dealing with previous Bills and this one. I say to my hon.


Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that the right to demonstrate against regimes abroad is not threatened at all by the Bill. We want to combine in this country a commitment to promoting democracy with fighting terrorism and organised crime. We must not allow the two to be inconsistent, and we must pursue both objectives.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 46 stand on the implication that an offence can infringe the European convention on human rights. I am not sure whether that is the case. Even if an offence can infringe on the convention, the Human Rights Bill will provide the opportunities to test the compatibility of UK law with the ECHR and to obtain remedies where it is not. That is the reason we are incorporating the convention into our legislation.
Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 are an unnecessary restriction on the scope of the Bill which already contains the safeguards that were discussed fully in the previous debate. We should not restrict the application of the clause in that way, although I have explained the way in which important human rights considerations can be part of the Attorney-General's consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) asked about the role of the Lord Advocate, which we have debated previously. The problem is that there is a difference between the function of the Lord Advocate and the procurator fiscal in the Scottish regime, compared with the responsibilities of the Attorney-General here. However, I understand that, under Scots law, all offences are prosecuted with the consent of the Lord Advocate. That responsibility is put in the hands of the procurator fiscal in terms of the conduct of proceedings. The same limitations will be achieved without putting them into the Bill.
Reference was made to countries under occupation where the Government perhaps are not the legitimate Government of the country. That may be relevant in some cases, in which case it would be taken into account by the Attorney-General. Therefore, I can give the assurance that, where that is a relevant consideration, this mechanism does allow for it to be dealt with.
This is not a question of pulling a Bill off the shelf. The commitment to legislation is long standing. It pre-dates the recess. It goes back to debates in opposition. We certainly considered it in the Home Office before consulting colleagues throughout Government during recent months. That is why I can be confident in arguing for support for the Bill and in appealing to colleagues not to press their amendments. They would not bring about the results that they wish because the dangers that they perceive are not there. I hope that I have been able to satisfy them of the rounded and effective nature of this legislation and that it will have support from colleagues and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

Ann Clwyd: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT OFFENCES OUTSIDE THE UNITED KINGDOM

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. McWalter: There is a very short time left for debate, but amendment No. 63, which stood in my name, effectively countermands this clause standing part of the Bill. If hon. Members vote against the clause standing part, the consequential amendments on the Order Paper will mean that it consists only of clauses 1 to 4. That would be a good night's work, because we would have sent a message to the bombers at Omagh that the policies that we want to ensure be proceeded with—the manifestation of our commitment to the Belfast agreement—go ahead. However, two Bills have been presented to us, and the second Bill is not a Northern Ireland terrorism Bill. It is a conspiracy Bill, and a conspiracy Bill is, by its nature, complicated.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) talked about how, if clauses 5 to 7 stopped the sort of events that happened at Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, it would be worth passing them, but he was talking with 20:20 vision, with hindsight. Of course, if we can connect conspiratorial actions with those vicious forms of attack, we should do everything in our power to ensure that they are curtailed, but what we have is a problem about conspiracy being detected, when we do not actually have the crime that is being conspired for.
We have an enormously complicated series of ideas about dual criminality, on which many hon. Members during today's long debates have made many fundamental errors. We have an annexe to a Bill that none of us has had a chance to read. Of course we support the Government's view that we must combat the increasingly international dimension to crime, but these clauses do not talk about terrorism. They talk about offences. They talk about matters, as Labour Members have said, such as theft. That is dually criminal, yet perhaps in some societies the way in which to undermine a despotic regime is to organise a campaign of theft. Yet that would be caught by the Bill.
It is too late to go into all the manifest reasons why we should consult Amnesty International and all those who are forces for good. We want to ensure that the objects of clauses 5 to 7 are achieved, but this is a rotten way to seek to achieve them. It will bring our process into disrepute in many ways. I was told earlier in the debate that, because I was a new Member, I did not know what was going on. A lot of people did not know what was going on. I had the advantage of discovering yesterday that the substance of the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) was coming here tonight. I read the comments made in February 1997 by the current Minister. I know what I am talking about because I was here last night at 5.30.
6.30 am
It is no way to treat new Members to say that the proposals have been coming for some time and that we talked about the issues 17 months ago and reached an agreement, so now we just want to ram the measures through. New Members have the right to assess such


matters too. It is important that we debate the issues at length, in principle, with determination to commit ourselves to arresting international crime and conspiracy to commit offences on the international stage.
It is right that we have passed clauses 1 to 4. Like many others, I voted for Second Reading on that basis. However, I hope against hope that the Government will take note of the strong feelings that have been expressed today. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 may be all right in their objects, but they are rotten in the way in which they seek to achieve those objects. They do not take account of counter-arguments—the vital component of parliamentary democracy.
I ask the Government, if it is not too late, to take seriously the mood of the Committee on the clauses, and to withdraw them at this late stage. If they do not, I ask the Committee to vote against clause 5. It can be pulled away from the Bill, leaving an intact Bill with intellectual integrity. Amendments Nos. 63 to 69, in my name as well as those of other Labour Members and Opposition Members, would chisel out conspiracy and leave us with a Northern Ireland terrorism Bill. That is what we should have been dealing with today. We should deal with the other business in October.

Mr. Straw: Had it not been for procedural defects that caused the Bill of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) to come to grief in early 1997, the provisions would have been on the statute book by early March last year. It would have gone on to the statute book with less discussion than the many hours that we have had today on clauses 5, 6 and 7.
This has been an intense debate on a day on which Parliament was recalled. Far more hon. Members on both sides have taken an interest in the subject. Important contributions have come from both sides. For reasons that we have well rehearsed and I shall repeat in a moment, I cannot accept the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), but I do not in the least dismiss it. We shall take the fullest possible cognisance of the anxieties that have been expressed and shall monitor carefully the operation of the whole Bill.
Because we have not had a full chance to debate the matter in the time available, I have put my name to new clause 7, which was tabled by Opposition Front Benchers and which provides that there should be an annual report presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State on the operation of all aspects of the Bill, after it has been enacted. The reason we accepted the Opposition's new clause is that it runs wider than similar amendments tabled by some of my hon. Friends, which referred only to certain sections of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), has also set out the safeguards that will apply in respect of the conspiracy provisions, in clauses 5, 6 and 7. To pick up a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, I accept that the drafting of those three clauses is certainly technical, as the area is one of some technicality. However, the issue at their heart is relatively simple: it is about ensuring, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spelled out, that those who are conspiring—conspiracy is a narrowly defined set

of activities, very different from incitement—in this country to commit crimes abroad should be capable of being brought to justice in this country in appropriate circumstances.
We are talking not about trivial cases, but about those who go in for organising paedophile rings abroad, drug runners, other serious acquisitive criminals and terrorists. When I am asked what was the urgency to introduce that part of the Bill yesterday and today, I repeat the point that I made 14 hours ago. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sought the agreement of the Speaker to recall Parliament because of the outrage at Omagh, where 28 people lost their lives and scores more were seriously injured. However, last month, 10 times the number who lost their lives at Omagh lost their lives in outrages in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.
The Cabinet view, which explains why the Bill is constructed in this way, was that, given that Parliament was being recalled to deal with Omagh and that we had already got ministerial colleagues' agreement in principle to the legislation, we would have been negligent had we failed to introduce clauses 5 to 7 as well. I therefore hope that they commend themselves to the Committee.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Home Secretary has some good arguments and he has advanced them better than many others would have done. However, his hon. Friends on the Back Benches also have a strong argument. It is not sufficient to say that people have had notice, when they did not. It is not good enough—

It being six hours after the conclusion of proceedings on Second Reading, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.

The Committee divided: Ayes 220, Noes 24.

Division No. 361]
[6.38 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov"try NE)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Alexander, Douglas
Clappison, James


Allen, Graham
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony
Coaker, Vemon


Barron, Kevin
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coleman, Iain


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Collins, Tim


Begg, Miss Anne
Colman, Tony


Berry, Roger
Connarty, Michael


Blizzard, Bob
Cooper, Yvette


Boateng, Paul
Cranston, Ross


Borrow, David
Crausby, David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Cummings, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darvill, Keith


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Browne, Desmond
Denham, John


Buck, Ms Karen
Dobbin, Jim


Burden, Richard
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Donohoe, Brian H


Caborn, Richard
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Edwards, Huw


Cann, Jamie
Ennis, Jeff


Caplin, Ivor
Etherington, Bill


Caton, Martin
Fisher, Mark






Fitzsimons, Lorna
Love, Andrew


Flint, Caroline
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foulkes, George
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fraser, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gapes, Mike
McNulty, Tony


Gardiner, Barry
McWilliam, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mallaber, Judy


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mandelson, Peter


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Martlew, Eric


Goggins, Paul
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Merron, Gillian


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Michael, Alun


Greenway, John
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Moffatt, Laura


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grogan, John
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Norris, Dan


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hammond, Philip
Olner, Bill


Hanson, David
O'Neill, Martin


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Organ, Mrs Diana


Heald, Oliver
Palmer, Dr Nick


Healey, John
Pearson, Ian


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Pendry, Tom


Hepburn, Stephen
Pickthall, Colin


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Pike, Peter L


Home Robertson, John
Pond, Chris


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Hope, Phil
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prior, David


Hoyle, Lindsay
Prosser, Gwyn


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Purchase, Ken


Humble, Mrs Joan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hurst, Alan
Quinn, Lawrie


Iddon, Dr Brian
Raynsford, Nick


Illsley, Eric
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Jenkins, Brian
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Roy, Frank


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Ruane, Chris


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Salter, Martin


Kidney, David
Savidge, Malcolm


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sawford, Phil


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Sheerman, Barry


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Laxton, Bob
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Leslie, Christopher
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Levitt, Tom
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Spellar, John


Linton, Martin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Stevenson, George


Lock, David
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Loughton, Tim
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)





Stinchcombe, Paul
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stringer, Graham
Watts, David


Stuart, Ms Gisela
White, Brian


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Swayne, Desmond
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wills, Michael


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Winnick, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Woolas, Phil


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Timms, Stephen
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Tipping, Paddy
Wyatt, Derek


Touhig, Don



Tredinnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trend, Michael
Mr. Clive Betts and


Trickett, Jon
Mr. David Jamieson.




NOES


Allan, Richard
McDonnell, John


Berth, Rt Hon A J
McNamara, Kevin


Best, Harold
Öpik, Lembit


Canavan, Dennis
Pollard, Kerry


Clwyd, Ann
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Skinner, Dennis


Dalyell, Tam
Wareing, Robert N


Davidson, Ian
Webb, Steve


Fyfe, Maria
Wise, Audrey


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Mr. Tony McWalter and


McAllion, John
Mr. Andrew Stunell.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 7

REPORT TO PARLIAMENT

`The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament at least once in every 12 months a report on the working of this Act.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; read the Third time, and passed.

It being more than six hours after the conclusion of proceedings on Second Reading, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution this day.

Adjourned accordingly till tomorrow.